Terence Young

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-291.

Hon. members of this House are well aware that this government is a strong advocate and supporter of the humanitarian dimension of our immigration program. I think every member of this Parliament meets with constituents or advocates for refugees who are working to assist people with a legitimate need for asylum on our shores, and we hear some very sad stories. I regularly give thanks that I was born in Canada.

Every year we welcome almost a quarter of a million permanent new residents, who embrace our values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This government has welcomed the highest number of people to Canada ever in our history, including refugees and students. Among them are thousands of refugees attracted by our values and a chance to start a new life. Most of these refugees will become citizens and enjoy, for the first time, freedom of speech, the freedom to vote and run for public office, the right to criticize governments, the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, the freedom to move anywhere they want in Canada, the right to equal treatment before the law in a fair trial, and a freedom that we often forget about, the right to have a family with more than one child if they so choose, a right not available everywhere in the world today.

Since this government came to office in 2006, we have accepted more than 51,000 refugees from around the world. In fact, Canada is one of the top three countries in the western world in terms of the number of refugees it accepts for resettlement. The welcome we extend has given us an international reputation as a champion of human dignity. As a member of Parliament, I am proud of that and we all should be, but we are growing increasingly concerned about the abuse of our asylum system.

As my hon. colleagues have heard, between 2006 and 2008, there was a 60% increase in the number of refugee claims filed in Canada. The growing backlog in claims reached 61,000 at the end of June. It is only responsible to manage that backlog to ensure that those who are in true need of asylum go to the front of the line.

The government inherited about one-third of that backlog when it took office. Roughly another third is a result of the transition to a merit-based appointment system, which resulted in delays of appointments of members to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, but which now stands at 98% capacity in terms of the number of board members. Another one-third of the backlog is the result of the growth in claims. Even at full capacity, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada can only handle 25,000 asylum claims a year. Last year we had 37,000 asylum claims. Clearly at this rate the backlog will just continue to grow, and so will wait times.

Almost one in four asylum claims Canada received last year were from Mexico, yet the Immigration and Refugee Board, with its high standards of fairness, accepted only 11% of those claims. It is not fair to make legitimate refugees wait due to systematic problems that we should be fixing. In fact, in some cases it is downright dangerous for those asylum-seekers to make them wait, while others are trying to immigrate with dubious claims.

A large number of the current asylum claimants are not in need of Canada's protection. Yet as it currently stands, an individual who is determined to play the system can stay in Canada for years while he or she works through the multiple recourses available to a failed refugee claimant and while our acceptance rate is one of the highest in the world. Some do so while working in Canada, while others rely on social assistance. This delay fundamentally undermines the fairness of our immigration system by allowing failed refugee claimants to remain in Canada for many years, in some cases for over six years, and often at taxpayers' expense.

I am pleased to report that since we began requiring visitors from Mexico and the Czech Republic to first obtain a visa, the number of refugee claims from those two countries has slowed to a trickle. In the almost three months since the visa requirement took effect, there have been only 16 refugee claims at ports of entry from Czech nationals, compared with 831 claims in the same period leading up to the visa imposition. Similarly, in that period, claims at ports of entry from Mexican nationals have fallen significantly from 1,287 in the nearly three months before the announcement down to 35.

Prior to the imposition of visas, Mexican and Czech refugee claims accounted for almost 50% of the total number of claims made at Canadian ports of entry. What does that tell parliamentarians? It tells us that the vast majority of these people from the Czech Republic and Mexico were probably so-called economic refugees, people who should be applying to immigrate to Canada in the normal way.

We have managed to stem the tide of refugee claims with visas on Mexico and the Czech Republic. However, I think we can all agree that visas are a blunt instrument and not the ideal solution.

We need to reform the asylum system. Too much of our time is spent on processing applications from people who are not in need of protection and whose claims are ultimately refused.

I think most MPs have constituents in their riding offices, as I do, some in tears, who simply want family members to visit for a wedding or an anniversary, but who are experiencing delays in getting visas. They suffer because others have abused the system.

We have repeatedly articulated why we do not support private member's Bill C-291, which would establish a refugee appeals division, as outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Asylum claimants already benefit from multiple avenues of recourse, including seeking leave from the Federal Court, and pre-removal risk assessments and applications for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I wish to remind my hon. colleagues that since 2002, no government, Liberal or Conservative, has agreed to implement the refugee appeal division, and for very good reasons. Refugee claimants in Canada are already treated with the utmost procedural fairness. Our current asylum system is already too slow and complex. Adding yet another level of appeal would not only make the process even longer, but it would also result in tens of millions of dollars in ongoing annual costs to the federal and provincial governments.

An appeals division would cause further delays, with no different outcome in most cases, I strongly suspect, as immigration consultants and lawyers would stay busy grasping at an additional paper review for the chance, however slim, of a different outcome. It is unfair to their clients, unfair to those waiting to be heard, and unfair to Canadians.

While I appreciate the member's motivation behind this bill, the latter is unworkable. What we have been advocating instead is reform of the asylum system. With a streamlined system, we could include a full appeal that would allow for the introduction of new evidence, not simply a paper review of a decision made at the refugee protection division, as suggested in the private member's bill.

The refugee appeals division, as envisioned in this private member's bill, would not improve the refugee determination system. In fact, it would make the system worse. If adopted, the proposed legislation would weaken, if not cripple, our current system. The implementation of an appeal would only be possible in a streamlined and simplified system.

My colleagues opposite are well aware of the government's position on Bill C-291 and know that our position has not changed. I strongly urge the opposition to consider the comments already made by the government during this debate. We support strong and effective protection for refugees, but this is not it.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are concerned that the victim does not get one last chance. The victim does not have a voice, and we are primarily concerned about the families. Not many of these people are released anyway, but the families, as we have heard from the quotes, go through a living hell and for no good reason.

Let me quote Darlene Boyd, who said, “You don't have to relive it every time they feel like going through a judicial review or parole—that's hard on families”. I have quote after quote from people who are suffering because of this unfair system.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is there is no new evidence regarding the crime presented. If a jury is put together, the judge looks at paper. What they are essentially doing is revisiting a criminal trial that took place 15 years prior or earlier than that.

I ask my friend opposite where she stands. I would like her to listen to what families have said.

Heidi Illingworth, with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, said in the National Post, on June 6, “The process is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment for survivors”.

Ed Teague, whose 18-year-old daughter was murdered, said, “My sons will have to end up going to those parole hearings. I don't want them to have to go through that on a regular two-year basis like has happened in the past”.

Carolyn Gardner, whose sister was murdered, said, “He can waive it”, a faint hope application, “but we don't have that option, to say 'we don't want it', If we don't go, there's no voice for my sister, for their daughter”.

Theresa McCuaig, whose grandson was murdered, said, “It's going to be very difficult for our family to go through court three times in one year for each criminal, and if they don't get it they are allowed to re-apply every second year after that. So we're going to go through this hell every second year”.

I ask the member opposite to listen to the families and help us repeal this provision.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oak Ridges—Markham for sharing his time with me today.

It is my pleasure to speak in strong support of Bill C-36, amendments to the Criminal Code that will put an end to the faith hope regime.

Saturday morning was Oakville's Santa Claus parade. I rode in a convertible with Frosty the Snowman, erstwhile Sheridan College student, Jaclyn Seer, as thousands of joyous adults and children waved and cheered along the curbs.

Towards the end we passed a police officer holding his radio microphone while he was chatting with another. “Look what I picked up”, he commented to the other officer. Alongside was a little boy about eight years old, still smiling, with a red foam ball attached to his nose, part of his Rudolph costume, apparently waiting for the officer to find his parents. I immediately wondered what might be going through his parents' minds. No doubt it would be worry that would grow exponentially as time passed, sadly with good reason.

I thought back to when I was a child in the 1950s and early 1960s. Even in Toronto, Canada's largest city, parents could allow their children to go out and play in the parks without fear, without fear they would be kidnapped, tortured or murdered. Today that is not true. Parents have to actually train innocent children against stealthy predators, both male and female. Tragically sometimes the predators still succeed.

I have to conclude that past governments have simply not done their best to protect our children and other vulnerable people. They have spent more time and effort worrying about the criminals in the system. As we passed that officer and little boy, I thought about why the people of Oakville sent me to Parliament. The first duty of any government is to protect its people, especially vulnerable people. That is my first duty to my constituents in Oakville. By voting for this bill, I am fulfilling that first duty.

Bill C-36 will ensure that those who commit the serious crimes of murder and high treason will serve the time that was imposed on them by the court that heard their case, serious time for serious crime, instead of getting some special break after 15 years and a paper review.

This means under this government many of our most dangerous criminals will be off our streets for 10 years longer, and others will think twice about their criminal plans. This will be real deterrence.

It is important to note that these are not troubled teens who stole a car to go for a joyride. They are not people who broke the law by mistake. They are the worst of the worst, people who have planned and carried out the worst crimes against innocent victims, crimes that are so horrible people would not even discuss them in front of children.

The faint hope clause was conceived in 1976 as a wish, an experiment by Liberal Justice Minister Warren Allman. It was supposed to provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves and at the same time increase security in prisons. It was good for the criminals but bad for the victims and their families.

I have heard some of the members opposite talk about studies that supposedly show that longer prison sentences do not deter crime, but how are these studies done? They are carried out by interviewing the people who have demonstrated they lack morals and have the highest motivation to lie, the criminals themselves, or they use selective statistics or they quote figures from the U.S., a largely different culture, regarding poverty, guns and crime.

Of course longer sentences reduce crime. The police and crown attorneys who deal with violent criminals will tell us that murderers are generally very well aware of the penalties they face if caught. Time in prison is what it is all about for these people. It is our most important tool in the justice system. The faint hope clause is a way that the worst criminals try to beat the system one more time. This is to say nothing of the huge cost to the taxpayers of the reviews and the hearings.

From victims' statements it is clear that the average person can only imagine the fear that the victim's families bear year after year that the person who murdered their loved one will obtain early release and kill again, or the continuing nightmare that they may one day meet the criminal face to face on the bus or in a lineup for a movie.

They have another dread, that one day after 15 years they will receive a letter in the mail requiring them to relive their terror and grief in order to make sure the criminal who stole the life of their loved one serves the full sentence he or she was given, because Parliament decided over 33 years ago to allow criminals to revisit that crime and sentence every two years. Why is that so? Is it because the perpetrator has been well-behaved in prison and he or she wants out?

There is no parole for the families. There is no early release for murder victims. The Liberal minister, who first introduced this clause in 1976, was concerned about the waste of the offender's life being in prison for 25 years, but where was the concern for the wasted life of the victim when the murderer chose to snuff it out? Who cared that the families were asked to relive their nightmares, in some cases every two years, by appearing at hearings for these criminals to tell their tragic stories over and over, effectively preventing them from leaving their pain behind and having any kind of closure?

Those of us in the Conservative Party care. There is an old expression that a Liberal is a Conservative who has not been mugged yet. There is an essential truth to that expression. Victims of violent crime on the whole have a vastly different view of crime and sentencing than those who have never been a victim. They see things much differently. That is because they have had the joy sucked out of their lives, at least temporarily, and their eyes are open. For some of them, life is never the same.

People who have looked into the eyes of a serial murderer or rapist and lived offer a unique perspective on a criminal's claim that 15 years in prison will change the criminal sense of right and wrong. All criminals want is for everyone to forget about their crimes. All the families of the victims want is for everyone to remember it. For justice, pick one.

The NDP member for Burnaby—Douglas claims that the system is working because, from 1997 to 2009, of 991 criminals who were eligible under this clause, only 131 were released and only four of them were caught in a similar crime. How incredibly naive that is. That statement is based on the ridiculous assumption that all crimes are solved and that all criminals are caught. Yet, we know there have been 3,400 unsolved murders in Canada since 1961. Over 500 native women have vanished in the last 30 years.

Clifford Olson was convicted for killing 11 children. Tragically, we have serial killers in Canada. Why would any clear-thinking person assume that the 101 faint hope parolees still out there are all perfectly reformed? When the time came to decide if Clifford Olson could apply for parole, however unlikely it was that he would get it, literally thousands of family members of those children and of those 500 missing women suffered a new man-made cruel and unusual punishment, this process of faint hope, as they relived their own losses.

We are keeping our promise to get tough on crime and hold offenders to account. If passed, Bill C-36 will bar all future murderers from applying for faint hope. This will effectively repeal the entire regime.

We in Parliament are tasked and trusted to protect vulnerable people. Each of us in this place asked for this trust and we must fulfill it. It should make no difference that the prison is in an unpleasant place. Our priority must be victims and their families and deterring violent crime.

I believe every member of the House should vote on the bill with one question in mind. If it were my child or spouse who was raped and murdered, how would I vote? We owe our constituents the same level of protection we would provide for our own families and nothing less.

[Danielle's Place Eating Disorder Support and Resource Centre, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the volunteers and staff at Danielle's Place Eating Disorder Support and Resource Centre, in Halton, who have improved the lives of hundreds of patients and families.

Danielle Mayeur lost her battle with anorexia in September 2001 at age 25 in a health care system that did not understand this complex and dangerous disease, but her vision of a place of compassionate and humane services for the sufferers of eating disorders was founded after her death by her mother, Carolyn.

Danielle's place has served over 1,500 clients, ages 10 to 65, who come from all over southern Ontario.

I especially acknowledge Dr. Randy Staab, Dr. Les Greenberg and Dr. Joanne Dolhanty at Credit Valley Hospital who use the innovative practice of emotion focused therapy. They are successfully helping patients reverse the debilitating symptoms of anorexia.

With the help of Danielle's Place and these medical pioneers, people with eating disorders need not suffer alone and now have real hope for a healthier future.

[Halton Region Health Care Workers, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the health care professionals, including nurses and support personnel, of Halton Region who serve my riding of Oakville as well as the ridings of Burlington and Halton.

On October 28 they opened the first of five H1N1 vaccination clinics to priority patients, and after the first day they maintained reasonable wait times of 15 to 45 minutes. Seventy-three thousand patients were vaccinated in the first 10 days. That was a great success under challenging circumstances.

Halton physicians are now administering 25,000 doses of the vaccine to students and senior citizens.

The Government of Canada ensured timely delivery of the vaccine to our community, and Halton Region staff ensured that our citizens were vaccinated against H1N1 in an orderly, efficient and safe manner.

On behalf of my constituents, I thank them and congratulate them.

[Employment, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has taken concrete actions to help Canadians and their families weather the global economic storm. The measures taken as part of our economic action plan are having a positive impact on the lives of Canadians who have been the hardest hit. We have taken additional action since to help long-tenured workers and self-employed Canadians.

Could the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development please inform the House about the status of these important initiatives?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the simple question is what would happen if our trading partners do not agree and abide by their agreements. It is very important to note the worst case scenario. The annex of the parallel agreement on labour cooperation sets out a maximum fine of $15 million for failing to respect the obligations set out in the agreement, but I believe it is moral persuasion that will work. We have an ongoing relationship with Colombia that we are working on and which this agreement will help to establish. We will have a presence in that country. That is the best way to assess, on a day-to-day basis, the human rights reality in that country.

We can monitor sections 1603 and 1604 of the agreement, which refers to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and its labour standards. That covers the right to association, free collective bargaining, and rights concerning the health and safety of all workers in the workplace. In fact, this agreement enforces two high standards. Colombia signed a free trade agreement and it is willing to demonstrate it will maintain those standards.

We are happy to support this agreement to make that happen.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister is planning a trip to China in the near future. This government understands that China is a tremendous potential trading partner. We do business in China already.

However, there always has to be a balance, as our friends in the NDP have talked about today, between human rights and business. I was very proud when the Prime Minister stood up for Huseyincan Celil, a Canadian citizen who was imprisoned without apparent reason in China. In any discussion we have on trade, with any trading partner, there has to be an open dialogue and discussion about human rights at the same time.

My colleagues on the Liberal side of the floor have talked about human rights as well, so I think they would be pleased with that. There is always a balance between trying to improve other countries' economies and trying to bring countries that do not benefit from the rights that we do into a better position on human rights.

No one thinks there are no injustices in Colombia, for example; there are injustices in every country. But if Canada wants to influence events, the government of Colombia has said it will abide by international labour agreements and pursue better human rights.

We feel, and I think experience shows, that countries are more likely to listen to other countries and institutions if their economy has become at least partially dependent on trading with those countries.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in November the Prime Minister went to Peru to pursue a free trade agreement with the Peruvians, and we are currently debating free trade with Peru.

We have also concluded a free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Canadian products will now go into these countries without tariff penalties. Lower prices will mean more sales in those countries.

If our American friends are not in a position to buy Canadian goods, for any reason, then perhaps people in Europe or South America will.

The most exciting potential is with the European Union, where there are 27 countries. This government is moving towards a formal negotiation with all of Europe, the world's second largest economy, at over a trillion dollars. With such a trading partner the dependence we have had on trade in the U.S. market will diminish. If the U.S. economy weakens, for any reason, as it has during this worldwide recession--in fact it started in the United States--we will have other avenues for trade. Canada will become more independent by trading with more partners.

There are serious concerns over the human rights record in Colombia, yet its current administration has shown it wants to improve human rights. As people's lives become better in Colombia, that administration will become more stable and it will have the time it needs to improve human rights. For example, it has signed the accord to follow the ILO, International Labour Organization, rules, regulations and obligations regarding trade and labour, as Canada already does. There are sanctions for countries that do not follow these accords.

Perhaps most important, union leaders in Colombia have said that they support this agreement. They have said this agreement would improve the labour situation in Colombia. Who would know better than they?

The most important principle is that people's lives in Colombia and Canada improve over time. By doing business with Colombia, we have good reason to believe they will.

Free trade creates prosperity and jobs. Ongoing trade dialogue and interaction would expose what is best about Canada to the people of Colombia who are in positions of influence in their society. It will take time. However, the people in Canada and Colombia who have ideas and are inventive and produce excellent goods would all benefit from this agreement, as would the people who work in their plants and factories.

Canadian companies will continue to lead the world. I think of Fifth Light Technology, in Oakville, where a brilliant engineer has developed a ballast for fluorescent bulbs and they can dim bulbs by operating computer-based technology in a factory in their large building. They are able to reduce the lighting costs in large facilities by up to 70%. That is conserving energy.

If this technology were to be put in every commercial building, in Ontario, for example, the owners of the company feel we would need one less nuclear reactor.

This company is a world leader. This is the kind of company that could take its technology to Colombia or Europe or anywhere else in the world and be ahead of everyone else, while creating jobs here in Canada.

This is an example of our future as a trading nation, taking what we do best in the world while engaging our trading partners in human rights and principles.