Rick Dykstra

[April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have been very clear. Since our 2006 budget, four budgets ago, we have shown clearly our intention and our efforts in terms of working with the aboriginal communities across our country, not just in making presentations, albeit presentations are extremely important, because certainly from an understanding perspective one wants to make those.

However, ours is about consultation. I can think of, as a member of the finance committee, spending time in Whitehorse doing exactly that, doing those consultations, listening to the direction that we needed to take, and in fact, doing that in 2006, 2007, 2008, and again in 2009, on the budgets that we have presented to the House.

In aboriginal communities throughout Canada, this is paying off and it is producing results. There is no question about that.

Even in our action plan of this budget, our government continues this commitment, with $1.4 billion for priority initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and the prosperity of aboriginal people here in Canada.

[April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Our government continues to work with a variety of first nations organizations in developing capacity within first nations to improve processes used to maintain effective and very accountable governments.

Let me be clear: The renewal of programs is part of the regular business cycle of our government. It requires periodic reviews of all grants and contributions to every single one of those programs, not just programs at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

We believe this is an excellent opportunity to modernize these programs, which help first nations leaders exercise the important core functions of government.

We think the timing could not be better, because the authority for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to fund the current program actually expires on March 31, 2010, roughly a year away.

Program evaluations have taken place over the last number of years, and stakeholders recommended changes that will improve program efficiencies and operations. The renewal in 2010 provides an opportunity to address these findings.

The programs to be renewed are as follows: band support funding, band employee benefits, professional and institutional development, band advisory services and tribal council funding. The engagement is focused on these programs, no more, no less.

The review of these support programs is important because it presents an excellent opportunity to modernize and simplify programs that were developed almost 25 years ago.

This spring, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada employees travelled across our country presenting and discussing with various audiences our government's approach. They attended three meetings in Alberta with representatives of the first nations organizations and first nations administrators. Presentations also took place in the Yukon, Quebec and Nova Scotia, and the department is looking to schedule a presentation in the Northwest Territories with first nations there.

Clearly our government is working to ensure that all stakeholders in these programs have an opportunity to express their views and suggest their improvements. We have assembled an expert panel to assist with this initiative.

It is very simple, really. We wish to hear from those who would be affected by changes to these programs. Discussions are taking place with a variety of organizations and groups, including the Assembly of First Nations. This represents an inclusive and very transparent approach in reviewing programs. That is something our government wishes for all governments and leaders in this country.

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway. While not a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, he is often a participant and is there to observe and does put his time in to assist his colleague from Trinity—Spadina in their work at committee. But today, this motion is calling for a moratorium on deportations to Sri Lanka and making sure there is a rush put on to see family class sponsorships and refugee claims from the danger zone.

Let me be quite clear at the outset, although we are sensitive to the challenges faced by Sri Lankans and we extend our wholehearted sympathies to the victims of this conflict, this government does not support this motion. The reason we do not support it is really not that complicated. In fact, it is irresponsible and it is overboard. Our government already has robust measures in place to address the legitimate aspects of the hon. member's concerns.

Protection of people in need and family reunification are two of the primary priorities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. When serious conflict is occurring, or a natural disaster has taken place that directly affects the relatives of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, the Government of Canada responds with a humane and flexible approach to ensure that families are reunited as quickly as possible. Special measures are generally not necessary for dealing with serious conflicts or natural disasters.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada already has all of the necessary legislative and regulatory authority to deal with exceptional circumstances such as these. Applications from applicants in the danger zone who contact the mission in Colombo are expedited. Applicants appearing in person at the mission can get an immediate review of their application and if possible, a decision within two days. Humanitarian and compassionate grounds are also being examined to facilitate approval of applications.

Let me deal with the hon. member's first point, “--the government should declare a moratorium on deportations to Sri Lanka--”. Many of the people who we are deporting are people who pose a threat to Canadians. The Canada Border Services Agency prioritizes the deportation of criminals and other individuals who pose a threat to Canada. It would be deeply irresponsible to enact a policy that would allow these people to stay here in Canada indefinitely.

Canadians of Sri Lankan descent should not have to fear the possibility that people who have committed war crimes might be allowed to live in their neighbourhood. They should not have to feel powerless when they report these people to the authorities and are told that, no, we cannot remove these people from our country no matter what they did. Canadians of all backgrounds should not have to fear criminals from other countries. Canada should maintain, wherever possible, the right to remove foreigners who commit crimes from our country.

This motion could make Canada a haven for fugitives from justice and organized crime figures who would exploit a misguided policy to prey on Canadians. The people who this motion addresses are people who simply do not qualify as refugees or who are inadmissible to Canada. People who have their refugee claims denied have access to an exhaustive series of processes to make sure that no one who is a refugee is denied refugee status in our country. People who are inadmissible are inadmissible for a reason and should not be in our country.

We already have a refugee system that provides ample protection to people who are at a risk in their homelands. All individuals under removal order have the opportunity to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. This assessment which stays the removal order is performed by citizenship and immigration officers and ensures that no one in need of protection is removed from Canada. These decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Canada and if the court elects to review a decision, the removal continues to be stayed until a final decision is rendered.

All individuals under removal order are entitled to apply through the various immigration channels available to them. For example, foreign nationals may at any time apply to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This provision allows for the flexibility to approve deserving cases not anticipated in the legislation.

Let me explain that.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows people who have not met the requirements for permanent residence to apply to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This provision allows for the unique circumstances of each individual to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Humanitarian and compassionate considerations could include, for example, the time that individuals have already spent in Canada, their establishment in this country, their integration into Canadian society, and the best interest of any children directly involved. An application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is a mechanism for people with deserving and compelling circumstances.

When the members opposite were in government, they understood this. That is why they continued to allow the deportation of dangerous individuals to Sri Lanka during this long-running conflict.

Let me now address the second part of the motion we are debating today:

the government should...expedite any family class sponsorships...from the danger zone.

Once more, this is redundant. To put it clearly, as the member for Vancouver Kingsway should already know, this is already happening.

Family reunification is a key priority for the government. The permanent resident applications of spouses and dependent children are processed on a priority basis. What is more, in this case, the mission in Colombo is already expediting applications from Sri Lankan individuals migrating from the danger zone. Applicants who appear in person at that mission receive an immediate file review to identify outstanding requirements, and usually receive same-day or next-day processing if their file is close to completion.

I want to now address the third part of the motion regarding expediting refugee claims for persons from the danger zone.

Canada has one of the best refugee protection systems in the world. Refugee claims are assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Furthermore, a number of appointments were recently made to the board, and that is again more concrete proof of this government's commitment to ensure faster decision-making on all refugee claims.

As one final point, Citizenship and Immigration Canada must strike a careful balance between dual objectives. On the one hand it strives to facilitate the admission to Canada of those individuals who are in need of protection or family reunification, but on the other hand, it must work to protect Canada and Canadian society. The removal from Canada of those who do not meet our admissibility requirements is a very necessary part of the protection function, and so is the rigorous screening of individuals that occurs during the processing of applications both in Canada and abroad.

In principle, Canada removes all persons who are found to be inadmissible to Canada. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Minister of Public Safety has the right to impose a temporary suspension of removals to a particular area or country.

Although Sri Lanka is not currently one of the countries on which a temporary suspension of removals has been imposed, I repeat that no one is removed from Canada without consideration of the individual's need for protection.

Also I would like to note that by their very nature, asylum seekers tend to come from countries experiencing turmoil or where they would individually be in a dangerous situation. Our system works best when we process individuals fleeing from violence and persecution equally.

I repeat that his motion is unnecessary. Measures are already in place that allow people in exceptional and compelling circumstances such as these to remain in our country, and that is why more permanent resident applications from individuals migrating from the danger zone are already being expedited.

Our government and our caucus has taken a reasonable position on this issue. We are committed to helping the people of Sri Lanka; there is no question about that. But I would hope that the members here realize and agree with the responsible approach of the government. We will continue to defend those who are in need and are seeking asylum based on real and true persecution.

[Victims of Terror, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Canadian victims of terror who are here today as part of the events marking National Victims of Crime Awareness Week.

Events such as the reception hosted by the Canadian Coalition Against Terror this evening in Centre Block help raise awareness for terror victims. As Canadians, we can learn from these victims strength and perseverance, which is a model to us all. Their experience reminds us why Canada must remain vigilant in combatting terror.

I would also like to thank C-CAT for its tireless work representing Canadians who have personally and directly experienced the horrific impact of terrorism. C-CAT is an invaluable organization, ensuring that terror victims are heard and helping our government devise policies to protect Canadians from terror and provide necessary support to all of the victims.

Our government looks forward to continuing to work with C-CAT, working towards a future where no Canadian is a victim of terrorism.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the question by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is an excellent question and probably the best question we have heard on this topic in the House.

I want to comment on the fact that I too listened to the statements and the motion by the member for Ajax—Pickering. As the member for St. Catharines I certainly disagree and I know the member Lambton—Kent—Middlesex certainly disagrees, but there are some points that he raises in his question.

Let me surmise very quickly, in this time of economic upheaval across our world, not just within North America but certainly within the G7 and within the G20, there is no better partnership and no better friendship and no better time to work with the United States than now. We have done that aggressively over the past three years and few months that we have been in power. We will continue to do so.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence and I appreciate his question, although I find it strangely ironic that he spent the first half of his question complimenting the Liberals. I suppose never let it go past a good Liberal to be able to pat himself on the back for alleged work that they have done. In fact, he spent the first half of his question complimenting his former government for the work that it had done and the second half saying that the only thing the government does is pat itself on the back for the work it does.

It is strangely an ironic question. Nonetheless, a point that should be made is that this government is continually, whether it be through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Public Safety, or the Prime Minister, taking actions. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety was just in Washington and met with his counterpart there. He spoke about the importance of a close relationship and building on the goodwill developed by the Prime Minister and the President. They established a formal process of having twice a year high level meetings between the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Minister of Public Safety, just to name a few. They are off, they are running, and we are working.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I certainly want to congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who did an outstanding on behalf of our government in describing exactly what the state of affairs is today, not anything around speculation, not anything around innuendo, but based solely on facts. That is how she works in her riding, and that is how she proves to be an effective member of Parliament here in Ottawa.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to motion from the member for Ajax—Pickering. I would like to comment on the degree to which the Canada Border Services Agency has implemented programs to improve border security and to expedite the flow of people and goods.

As other speakers have noted, the CBSA manages the border access of people and goods to defend Canada's sovereignty, security, health and prosperity. The border plays a dual role of assistance and security. In other words, efficient borders support immigration, trade and tourism; and smart and secure borders keep criminals and other dangerous elements out of our country. The challenge is to find the appropriate balance of border enforcement in a shifting and dynamic global environment.

The programs implemented or planned at the border reveal several strategies: First, they obtain advance information to permit risk assessment; second, they stream the low risk people and goods to allow border services officers to focus on higher risks; and third, they use technology to better identify people and examine goods.

Improvements to border programs are ongoing. In fact, the House has just received Bill S-2, passed through the Senate, that seeks to amend the provisions of the Customs Act to further support the government's strategy to strengthen security and emphasize and facilitate trade.

In the bill, two key amendments are being proposed that fully implement two programs: first, the advance commercial information initiative; and second, the customs controlled areas.

In 2004 and 2006, the CBSA implemented the advance commercial information initiative in the marine and air modes of transportation, requiring carriers to provide electronic information on cargo destined to Canada within advanced timeframes. In 2007, the CBSA commenced development of eManifest, the third phase of the advance commercial information initiative.

Amendments are being requested to the act to require that advance information be provided electronically and in advance by all participants or links in the trade chain. Requirements already faced by the marine and air modes of transportation will be extended to highway and rail carriers, freight forwarders and importers, allowing the CBSA to rigorously risk assess all cargo prior to its arrival at Canada's borders and minimizing the processing required upon arrival.

Bill S-2 also firms up requirements for the advance passenger information/passenger name record program, which allows for the pre-arrival risk assessment of traveller data that is transmitted by commercial air carriers.

The amendments will also provide border services officers the flexibility to examine persons and goods within the designated customs controlled areas, where most internal conspiracies occur. This will allow for a greater focus on areas of risk and of persons of interest. It will help improve the security of Canadians by enhancing the CBSA's ability to confiscate contraband and other illegal items on docks, airport tarmacs and rail yards before they reach the streets of all our communities.

Let me briefly outline other initiatives that have been undertaken to modernize border management and produce a safe, secure and accessible border.

The NEXUS program is a joint initiative of the CBSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This initiative is designed to expedite the border clearance process for pre-approved, low risk travellers into Canada and the United States. NEXUS followed on the CANPASS programs, domestic initiatives that were similarly designed to streamline and expedite the border clearance process for pre-approved, low risk travellers into our country.

NEXUS continues to be a great example of what can be achieved, working with the U.S., to more efficiently process low risk travellers, allowing more focus on higher or unknown risk people.

NEXUS has now been implemented at all major Canadian airports and harmonized across the air, land and marine modes.

The CBSA's use of iris recognition technology and the NEXUS air system is on the leading edge. Members simply step up to a small kiosk where an innovative iris recognition tool can verify the traveller's identity based on 266 characteristics.

The CBSA is also developing biometric technologies, which are options to further assist our officers in verifying traveller identification through the capture of fingerprints and electronic photos.

The agency is looking at the use of biometric data capture for temporary resident visitors, students, and foreign workers requiring visas, to assist officers in the process of verification of traveller identification.

Fingerprints and photo data will be captured overseas at the time of the visa application. This biodata will be used to verify previous infractions against the applicant to assist in the application's approval or denial process. It will also be used at the time of actual applicant entry into Canada to confirm the visitor's identity to that of their actual visa.

Continuing this type of innovation, later this year CBSA will introduce new self-serve border kiosks at the Vancouver International Airport. These kiosks will pilot automated border clearance, a new, secure and innovative service designed to accelerate passenger screening and border processing.

A similar need, served by NEXUS for travellers, existed in the trade realm. With more than $700 billion in goods crossing the border every year, finding innovative ways to identify and efficiently facilitate low-risk goods is vital to Canada's prosperity and our economic competitiveness.

The customs self-assessment program accounts for approximately 20% of the national value for duty of imports and allows importers to use their own business systems and processes to trigger trade data and revenue reporting, saving them both time and money.

The free and secure trade program, or FAST, is similar to customs self-assessment but is the result of the smart border declaration between Canada and the United States. Under the free and secure trade program, both countries cooperated to simplify border crossing for pre-approved low-risk importers, highway carriers and commercial drivers.

Special attention is being placed on marine port security. The harmonized risk scoring and advanced trade data initiative is enhancing the CBSA's ability to identify risk within the marine commercial supply chain by developing brand new risk assessment tools.

The CBSA is harmonizing these requirements with U.S. customs and border protection to create increased border security without imposing competing sets of requirements on the North American trade community. We want security, but we want trade. We want a strong economy and we want to be able to continue to develop those with our partners in the United States.

The CBSA has invested significantly in detection technologies to meet the demands of securing Canada's border. Effective, non-intrusive inspection technology includes the application and development of mass spectrometry and other techniques to identify trace amounts of narcotics and explosives, density metres that discover hidden walls, counterfeit detection equipment, and remote-operated vehicles to inspect ships' hulls.

The mobile vehicle and cargo inspection system, a truck-mounted gamma ray scanning system that scans marine containers, rail cars or trucks quickly and safely, helps officers to detect hidden compartments, contraband, weapons and other potentially dangerous goods. We have one at our borders in the Greater Niagara area, both in Buffalo and it can be transferred from the Peace Bridge to the Rainbow Bridge, providing very effective use.

The Canadian government has stressed its support for these objectives underlying the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative. The CBSA has been part of the overall federal effort on the WHTI file to ensure Canadians are well informed and prepared for new requirements, and that the WHTI is implemented as smoothly as possible. The government has also been supportive of provincial efforts to develop WHTI compliant enhanced driver's licences in our country.

In summary, the CBSA is a world leader in applying innovative solutions that assist in both improving border security and facilitating the flow of goods. We are good partners with our friends in the United States.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question from the hon. member. If she would like to meet after question period, I would be happy to take her concerns up with the ministry. However, at this point in time, she has not indicated a name or file number or whether she has the authority to speak on behalf of the individual in question.

[Armenia, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today as hundreds of thousands of people in Yerevan, Armenia lay flowers around the Armenian Genocide Memorial, Canadians of all backgrounds will join in commemorating the lives of those lost between 1915 and 1923.

This day 94 years ago marks the beginning of the brutal and systematic destruction of the Armenian people by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire. In this first modern genocide, approximately one and one-half million Armenians perished.

It is only in recognizing the atrocities of the past that we can learn the lessons of history and ensure that such callous disregard for humanity is never repeated.

I call on all members of the House to honour the victims of this genocide and stand firm with the Armenian Canadian community in recognizing the suffering of their forefathers.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to speak during the second reading of Bill C-25 which proposes to limit the credit granted by the courts to offenders for time spent in custody. The honour is made even greater for me today by the fact that during the 39th Parliament I introduced a private member's bill which, like Bill C-25, sought to replace the double time served sentencing provisions with a more just and appropriate sentence. I want to thank the minister for taking into account my private member's bill when he introduced Bill C-25 in the 40th Parliament.

Before discussing the various elements of this bill, I would like to briefly describe the implications of the credit granted for time spent in custody. Pre-sentencing custody occurs when it is necessary to ensure the appearance of the accused. In other cases, custody before and during the trial is necessary to protect the public when it is highly likely that the accused will reoffend or obstruct the administration of justice in the event that he or she is set free for that period of time. The severity of the offence may also justify the need to keep the accused in custody.

The Criminal Code establishes that time spent in custody may be taken into consideration during sentencing, but does not provide for any ratio to be applied. The courts, however, have traditionally applied a 2:1 ratio, that is, a credit of two days for each one day spent in custody. In other words, an accused who has spent six months in custody following an offence for which a fair prison sentence would be two and one-half years would only serve a year and a half based on the 2:1 ratio being applied.

Instead of being incarcerated in a federal penitentiary for a sentence of more than two years, the offender would now actually serve the sentence in a provincial prison.

The courts justify this ratio by citing the lack of programs in correctional facilities and the fact that pre-sentencing custody is not taken into account when considering eligibility for parole once the sentence has been handed down. That is why the period spent in custody is often referred to simply as down time. However, this ratio is not fixed at 2:1. In some cases it has become 3:1, where custody conditions were especially difficult, either because a correctional institution was overpopulated or because the sanitary conditions were poor. However, it is obviously our hope that such a ratio is rarely applied.

Sometimes the ratio applied is less than 2:1, where the offender is unlikely to be granted early parole because of his or her criminal record or where the offender was placed in preventive custody due to a bail violation. However, there is no uniformity or consistency in the importance attached to these factors.

In the last decade the proportion of persons in pre-sentencing custody has actually exceeded the number of adults in post-sentencing custody in the provinces and territories. There are more folks in custody who are awaiting trial than there are prisoners who have been convicted or are in jail. Overall the number of persons in pre-sentencing custody account for approximately 60% of the number of persons admitted to provincial and territorial institutions.

As a result, the provincial and territorial governments have voiced their concerns regarding the repercussions on the growth of the population in pre-sentencing custody and have requested that the 2:1 ratio be limited. Among the factors that have contributed to this increase is the fact that the court records are now much more complex, take much more time to process and result in a longer period spent in pre-sentencing custody.

For example, in 1994-95 some 34% of accused in custody were held for more than a week. A mere 10 years later this proportion has risen from 35% to 45%. The proposal contained in this bill will help reduce court caseloads thereby accelerating the processing of records.

Also, there have been reports that the increase in the population in custody is due to the choice of the accused to extend the period spent in custody so as to have a shorter sentence once the 2:1 ratio is applied after conviction. This bill is aimed at discouraging and eliminating this behaviour.

The credit of two days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody increases court caseloads and allows certain accused to obtain a lighter sentence. This common practice creates a public perception that the sentences imposed simply do not reflect the severity of the crime, especially when the ratio applied for the pre-sentence period is unknown.

That is why this bill proposes the application of a 1:1 ratio in all cases with the possibility, if circumstances justify, of granting up to one and one-half days for each day spent in custody. In addition, it proposes to limit the ratio to 1:1 for persons in pre-sentencing custody on the basis of their criminal record or because they have violated their bail conditions.

This bill proposes that the courts clearly indicate the credit for the time spent in custody as well as the sentence imposed. It also requires that the courts give reasons for their decision for any credit granted for time spent in custody. This will make it possible to better evaluate the ratio used and how often a credit is given for time spent in custody. Even a one to one credit will require the courts to explain the decision and why the grant was given for that additional credit.

These measures will allow for greater uniformity and certainty, and increase public confidence in the administration of our justice system.

This bill will result in an increase in the number of offenders who previously received a sentence under provincial jurisdiction, two years less a day, after taking into account the credit for the period spent in custody, and who will now receive a sentence under federal jurisdiction of two years or more. In addition, offenders under federal jurisdiction will spend more time in federal detention facilities. This increase will also allow for improved rehabilitation among offenders since they can benefit from correctional programs for a longer period.

For these reasons, I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to give their unanimous support to this bill so as to accelerate its passage as quickly as possible.

Enhanced credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody is seen as one of the several factors that have contributed to considerable increases in remand populations over the past several years. In other words, the longer an individual who has been charged and is awaiting his or her trial, the more the individual can have his or her case remanded, the bigger the benefit the individual receives for the time he or she has spent in pre-sentencing custody. That is not what this was meant for. It was not the intent to assist criminals who are convicted of crimes to seek easier passage of their incarceration time.

At the end of the day, this bill makes sense. It enhances and augments what the minister has described as a bill that needs speedy course through this House and through committee.

The constituents who live in my riding of St. Catharines have long cried out for changes to the legislation, based on a number of court cases in the Niagara area where convicted criminals have benefited from two or three to one additional credits for the days they have spent in pre-sentencing custody. I submit that the constituents of more than just one riding in this country believe this is the right legislation to pass. It should have happened sooner, but it is happening today because this government is ready to move on this justice legislation.