On September 16, 2009, Alice Wong gave the following statement in the House of Commons, regarding the Canada Line:
The player will show in this paragraph
Mrs. Alice Wong (Richmond, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, on August 17, I was privileged to participate in the opening of the Canada Line, a new rapid transit line that links Richmond to the Vancouver International Airport and the City of Vancouver. It connects commuters from Richmond to downtown Vancouver in just 25 minutes.
The Canadian government’s $450 million investment in this $2 billion project will return large dividends.
The people employed to construct the Canada Line worked hard and the project was finished ahead of schedule and on budget. The Canada Line is expected to serve 100,000 riders per day and this number will certainly grow in the years to come. It is a critical piece of the rapid transit infrastructure in the metro Vancouver region.
Our government was pleased to partner with the Government of B.C., the Vancouver Airport Authority and TransLink to finish this great engineering project.
I invite all members, Canadians and visitors from all around the world to come to Richmond in February 2010 to ride the Canada Line, watch the Olympics and enjoy Richmond.
On April 20, 2009, Private Members’ Bill C-291 (An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171) was debated in Parliament. The following is a transcript of the debate:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to state the government’s opposition to Bill C-291, the bill that seeks to establish the refugee appeal division.
Hon. members of the House know very well that this government is a strong advocate and supporter of the humanitarian division of our immigration program. Every year we welcome almost a quarter of a million new permanent residents who embrace our values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As an immigrant myself, I was one of them. Among these newcomers are thousands of refugees attracted by our values and the chance to start a new life.
Since the 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 numbers of refugees we accept for resettlement. The welcome we extend has given us an international reputation as a champion of human dignity. For example, we have made major commitments for the protection of Karen and Bhutanese refugees in Asia. We have also offered protection to refugees from Africa and Latin America.
We have a very generous asylum program as well. Asylum seekers from all over the world have found a durable solution to their refugee plight in Canada. Canada’s asylum system has one of the highest acceptance rates among western countries, accepting 42% of claimants last year. No less than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called us a model for other nations.
Those are facts in which we can take great pride. I think we can all agree that Canada’s refugee system is acknowledged as one of the strongest and fairest in the world today.
However, as everyone in this House knows, we also face significant challenges. It has long been the view of this government that the implementation of a refugee appeal division is not the way to address these challenges.
I would like to talk about the large and growing number of unfounded claims that are putting an incredible strain on our system. These unfounded claims are using up resources that should be used to help people with legitimate refugee claims. As a result, the wait times are getting longer. The most straightforward, successful refugee applications can take an average of two and a half years to reach permanent residency because of a backlog that has continued to grow, despite the current 90% occupancy of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
As the
Prime Minister and others in this government have said many times before, Canadians expect our refugee system to help and protect legitimate refugees. The refugee appeal division proposed in Bill
C-291 would not help us meet these objectives. It would provide only a paper-based review on issues of fact and law. It would not provide an opportunity to introduce evidence, nor would it provide for an in-person hearing. It would, however, add unnecessary delays and costs to an overburdened system. It is not just the cost of the appeal division which, as my colleagues previously have pointed out, would be in the tens of millions of dollars, but there would also be other costs to the provinces and the federal government for health care and social assistance. This is why it is surprising that the Bloc would be pushing the bill at a time of economic uncertainty that would increase the costs of services to the province of Quebec.
Moving to another point, I want to acknowledge the steps this government has taken to assure the quality of decisions at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Based on the recommendations of the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, we implemented a new process for the appointment of members of the IRB in July 2007. This new process strengthens the merit-based focus of governor in council appointments to the board and increases transparency and fairness at the same time. This was an important step forward that was endorsed by the Auditor General when she released her latest report this spring.
It is essential that refugee claimants and Canadians have the utmost confidence in the decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This selection process helps to ensure that confidence. Since this government took office, there have been 111 appointments and 59 re-appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The board now stands at 90% of its full complement. As a result, more genuine refugee claims can be process and finalized, while more frivolous asylum applications are dismissed more quickly.
However, even with a full complement, the rate of applications has increased beyond the capacity of the board, increasing the backlog. This is why the refugee system needs to be reformed instead of creating another useless appeal process that will only make the problem worse.
We have repeatedly urged the opposition to consider the comments already made by the government during this debate. We have a system where even the most straightforward successful refugee claims are currently taking too long to reach a decision. Unsuccessful refugee claimants regularly take over five years before they finish the various levels of appeals available to them. This is five years of federally funded health care and provincially funded social programs, on top of court costs and IRB costs.
Our goal should be to focus more of our time and resources on the people who genuinely need our help and protection, and deal more quickly with those who are trying to take advantage of our generosity.
While Canadians are proud of our support for refugees, less than one in four think we do a good job of removing people who not legitimate refugees. Not only do they read stories about how long people are here before we can deport them, they also notice increases in the number of asylum seekers from countries they do not consider unsafe. Hon. members know, for example, that there has been a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers from Mexico and only 11% of those claims are accepted.
These failed refugee claimants now have assets to seek leave for judicial review of the IRB decision. After that, they may apply for pre-removal assessment and, if they are still unsuccessful, they may apply for permanent residence status via a humanitarian and compassionate application. This process will take years and all the while these failed refugee claimants have access to social benefits paid for by taxpayers.
Canada will continue to show strong leadership in providing protection to those in need. We will continue to work closely with the United Nations and our partners to do this. However, to do this we require some changes to ensure that people who are not legitimate refugees cannot take advantage of the system through a multi-year system of appeals that will only be increased by this bill.
We support strong and effective protection for genuine refugees but the implementation of the refugee appeal division, as described in Bill
C-291, is not the answer. Again, I urge all hon. members not to support Bill
C-291.
The following is from the March 26, 2009 Hansard debates – on the motion to to adopt the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which states the following:
The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
As the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted earlier, Canada has a fair, internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution, risk of torture or risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. We are committed to protecting refugees and those in need of protection. This means that we must ensure the system is there for those who genuinely need it.
All refugee claimants have the right to due process and when they have exhausted legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave Canada.
Today I intend to address two key issues in this debate: the fair process available to refugee claimants and immigration applications and the potential problems that could arise from adopting this motion.
Canadians want a refugee system that helps to protect genuine refugees. All refugee claimants in Canada have the right to due process, a principle established by the Supreme Court in 1985 for refugee status determination in Canada. This is the basis for how Canada has maintained a fair and internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.
Refugee claims made in this country, including those made by U.S. service personnel, are heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, of Canada. The IRB is a quasi-judicial independent body that provides a fair hearing to those who claim to be in need of protection. It assesses each claim on its own merit with regard to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The board reports that currently fewer than 50 claims have been made by U.S. citizens on the basis of objection to military service. As has been demonstrated in the publicized cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the refugee protection process allows ample opportunity for claimants to challenge decisions made concerning their claims. They may do so through seeking leave for judicial review by the Federal Court. In some instances, they have sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
While waiting for a decision on their claims, refugee claimants who pass medical screening are entitled to a work permit, which allows them to be employed in Canada. Those who cannot find work may apply for social assistance in the province where they reside. These claimants also have access to emergency medical services funded by the Government of Canada.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, failed refugee claimants may also request, prior to being removed from Canada, a pre-removal risk assessment. This assessment allows CIC officials to examine any new evidence, any change in country conditions or other circumstances that might arise concerning personalized risk to individuals. This could include evidence such as whether a person would face risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if an applicant was returned to the country of origin. These are the same elements that are assessed by the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB.
There are also other avenues available to people wishing to move to Canada should they not qualify as refugees. Normally, those seeking permanent residence do so by applying for a visa outside of Canada, but foreign nationals who wish to apply for permanent residence from within Canada may do so on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or, if eligible, as a member of an in-Canada class.
There has been a great deal of coverage regarding the cases of Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey, the American soldiers who deserted the United States army, came to Canada and made refugee claims in this country. The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants’ claims for refugee protection. The Federal Court of Canada and, subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal, dismissed their cases. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their application for leave to appeal on November 15, 2007.
As others have said, claimants have access to a fair hearing in Canada with a number of opportunities for review. However, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have all indicated that these U.S. military deserters have not demonstrated that they are in need of Canada’s protection as refugees.
The motion to implement an in-Canada program to allow these individuals to apply to remain and work in Canada and to be eligible for permanent resident status runs counter to having an immigration policy that is both fair and consistent in its application.
As I noted earlier, this government is committed to ensuring that all immigration applicants and refugee claimants have access to the full process outlined by IRPA and that all cases are fully and equitably resolved. By supporting this motion, the House would be calling for a unique benefit for some foreign nationals proposing that they can be allowed to apply for permanent resident status outside of existing immigration channels.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge my fellow members in the House to vote against this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are a number of concerns. In this case, it is not like Vietnam where there was conscription. This was a voluntary tour. The issue is that before they completed that tour they were actually ordered to serve an additional tour or more, which is quite unusual.
Notwithstanding that, it is my understanding that in the United States those persons who volunteered initially and then were ordered subsequently would be charged and found guilty of being war deserters, which is a crime. We had one recent case like that where the person was sent to jail for some 15 months.
I ask the member whether or not Canada’s policy with regard to war resisters should be reflective of Canada’s views on the legitimacy of wars and the choices we have made, or rather on the policy of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. It is on these terms that we understand that the Immigration and Refugee Board makes that decision and it considers each asylum case on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. member. First, I would like to know why the Conservative government blocked any discussion at refugee hearings about the legality of the Iraq War since that is a crucial factor in making these kinds of determinations.
Also, the member says that these people are not legitimate refugees and cast aspersions on their refugee claims. However, under international law, Canada must uphold several principles. One comes out of the Nuremberg tribunals which said that every soldier has a moral duty, not a choice, to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Under a number of other international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the UN handbook for refugees, it makes it clear that conscientious objectors to war have rights and can require protection from states. Why has Canada refused to meet its obligations under these various long-established and upheld international principles?
Mr. Speaker, U.S. military deserters are not refugees. They do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection. This position has been upheld by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary and member for Richmond for her comments. I thought she did an outstanding job explaining and expressing the position of the government.
One of the issues that has come through the House here is the issue of compassion, the issue of emotion that should be somehow interjected or intertwined into this discussion. I certainly have no problem with that. At the end of the day of course we have to base our decision on fact and law.
The member represents the riding of Richmond and I know she has many cases dealing with refugees who come to her office and ask her for help. Could she explain, in her words, the type of emotion and compassion that needs to be shown for them?
Mr. Speaker, there are people who come and say that they need to stay because if they go back to their own countries they will be persecuted. There are also people who come and express the need for help and assistance.
We deal with them individually, case by case, and we deal with them on compassionate grounds as well. For example, I was approached by somebody from Toronto whose wife passed away while giving birth to a child. He was in the process of applying for permanent residence to this country. We really give individual cases individual attention.
In this case, by passing this whole recommendation, we are opening up the floodgates and other genuine refugees will be deferred. This is not the way the system should be fairly treated.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court recently granted Joshua Key a new hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board and recent decisions by the Federal Court granted a stay of removal for Jeremy Hinzman and Kimberly Rivera, citing differential punishment of the Iraq war resisters. It goes to the whole point that because they have spoken out here, they have different kinds of punishment. How would she respond to that?
Mr. Speaker, the report presented by the committee actually covers everything. I do not understand why we have to address each individual war. Again I say, American deserters are not refugees and that is the position we are taking right now.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question again. Obviously, there is something wrong with the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board. If that is not the case, then the Federal Court, in three instances, would not have granted either a stay or a complete rejection of the IRB’s decision, so there is something that is wrong with the board’s decision. There is this whole claim that we should not worry because three boards, tribunal after tribunal, have rejected their claims of being refugees. How can we say they are not refugees when the Federal Court has now tossed that out and another hearing has to be granted?
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the record, American deserters who have applied as refugee claimants have never been granted that. Again and again, I would like to state that American deserters are not legitimate refugees.
Spoken in the House of Commons, January 30, 2009 (Topic: Warren Kinsella)
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are asking me why the Liberal leader is refusing to fire his top political aide, Warren Kinsella. Was Mr. Kinsella’s comment about tucking into a bowl of barbecued cat at the Yang Sheng restaurant here in Ottawa made in his role as Liberal Party spokesman?
His comments that Chinese restaurants serve cat meat deeply offended the Chinese community in Canada and have already been condemned in the Sing Tao Daily, Ming Pao, the World Journal and across Chinese language talk radio.
As Chinese Canadians and as people who appreciate the freedom and opportunity that Canada provides, my community and I are deeply offended by these racially ignorant comments from an official spokesperson for the Liberal Party. What hurts the most about Kinsella’s comments is that he refuses to apologize to the Chinese community.
When will the leader of the Liberal Party realize the seriousness of this and when will we see an apology?
Spoken in the House of Commons, January 27, 2009 (Topic: Lunar New Year)
Mr. Speaker, I will start my first words in the House of Commons by thanking the voters of Richmond for their trust in me. I also wish to thank my campaign team, the volunteers and especially my husband for their unwavering support all these years.
Richmond is home to Canada’s Pacific gateway and one of the most multicultural ridings in Canada. In fact, yesterday marked the beginning of the widely celebrated lunar new year.
This year is the year of the ox. The ox traditionally symbolizes prosperity through perseverance and hard work. With economic uncertainty, the year of the ox beckons all of us here to work tirelessly, bringing stability to the economy, maintaining jobs and caring for the most vulnerable.
In 2010, Richmond will showcase to the world the magnificent speed skating oval and a brand new Canada line that connects Richmond with the Vancouver International Airport and downtown Vancouver.
Working with the spirit of the ox, Richmond will prosper. On behalf of Richmond, I wish all Canadians a healthy and prosperous lunar new year. Gong hei fatt choy.
