Processing Bill C-86

CANADA'S PERIODICAL ON REFUGEES REFUGE Vol. 12 No. 2 July 1992 Special Issue on New Amendments to the Immigration Act Processing Bill C-86 Bill C-86, the new proposed Immigration consideration in committee during the followedbyabout ten to twenty minutes Act, is the first total overhaul of our summer months and pass it in the early of discussion. immigration legislation since our part of the fall session. Bill C-86 deserves Such hasty consideration would not existing Act was tabled in 1976. The Bill closer scrutiny. be such a serious matter if the changes became law only in 1978. The new At the time the proposed Bill was were not so important to the future life of proposed legislation was tabled in the made public in mid-June, the this nation. We are a country made by House of Commons in mid-June. The government produced a great deal of immigrants. The way we deal with expressed intention is that it become the literature explaining the legislation's immigrants and refugees gives our law of the landbefore the end of the year. intent and analyzing the major changes. country its character. At the recent No decision a country makes, Unfortunately, few journalists, con- informal consultations of the Western including decisions on our constitution, cerned citizens or specialistswere able to states on immigration held in Toronto in is more important than who and how obtain copies of the actual Bill. Twelve June, my European friends in attendance new members will be allowed to join. scholars in our research centre are were impressed at the balance between Canada was constituted by immigrants. working from one copy of the Bill, which justice and efficacy that Canada had Eighteen percent of our current I obtained personally in Ottawa. (It was achieved in its immigrant and refugee population were born elsewhere. unavailable at the time from the legislation. We have developed one of Canada is a country of people as well as government printing office.) the most just and rational systems for basic laws, and immigration laws It would not be so serious if the Bill dealing with immigrants and refugees. determine who will make up a was to be carefully vetted in due course, The present Bill is intended to make significant proportion of Canada's body but NGOs and academics have been significant improvements to that politic in the future. contacted and many were leaving for process. I believe that it does. The Bill It is critical that new immigration summer holidays. Some had previous proposes many excellent changes. It also legislation be given careful con- commitments. They were told to send has serious flaws. Let me cite just one. sideration. This is particularly important any written submissions to the House The Bill has a provision for bilateral since there is a great deal of evidence that Committee by July 15 or, at the latest, by and even multilateral agreements for Bill C-86, the most all-encompassing the end of July. A number have told me dealing with refugee claims. Such a legislation on immigration in Canadian that they have already been given dates legislative provision anticipates the history, was hastily put together. Yet the for hearings in July; they will be allowed future when refugee claims will be dealt intention is to give the legislation rapid ten minutes to make a presentation, with on a multilateral basis according to fair and agreed-upon rules. Refugees population of Western resettlement will then be allocated to receiving states countries and far fewer than countries of on a previously agreed-upon burden- first asylum that border refugee- sharing formula. This will avoid asylum producing states. We do not carry our shopping and at the same time ensure fair share of theburden of claimants even that all states live up to their obligations now. under the Refugee Convention in a fair The new legislation will allow and equitable manner. claimantsto beexpeditiouslyand, by and The Bill also strengthens the large, fairly dealt with, though there still provisions for the very opposite beggar- is no adequate provision for correcting thy-neighbour approach encompassed inevitable mistakes. The real danger in in the never-implemented safe third the Bill is that we will cut access to the country provisions of Bill C-55, which system dramatically andunfairly. In fact, became law in 1990. The safe third one study of the Bill suggests that country provisionasserts that if a refugee provision for accessing the system is claimant traversed or sojourned in being transferred to immigration control another country en route to Canada, officers-a refugee claimant who is Canada could send the claimant back to determined to have traverseda safe third that country and deny the individual country will be denied access to the access to the Canadian refugee claims Canadian system at the border. system. The provision is intended to Such a provision is totally at odds place the total refugee burden on those and contradictory to a philosophy of countries that are most accessible to shared responsibility. On this issue, the refugees in flight. Since we are at the end Bill reads like a scissors-and-paste effort of the refugee pipeline because of our put together by competing factions of geographic location, this could mandarins to produce an incoherent and dramatically cut access to the Canadian contradictory hybrid. system. A recent study by one of my Some have tried to justify such colleagues, to be published in the drastic measures by pointing to the large Canadian Review of Sociology, concludes number of claimants Canada receives, that "immigration policy in Canadarests but the number of claims have fallen, not on a potentially unstable foundation of risen. From a peak of 37,000 claims, the disparate values and conflicting numbers now average 30,000 per year. interests." It would be a pity if those This is about one claim per 1,000 of conflicting interests were exacerbated by population. Germany receives one claim a legislative process that provided too per 250 of population. We receive less little time for those who disagree to air than the average of one claim per 840 of their concerns.Not onlywould the result Contents: Processing Bill C-86, Editorial .......................... ................................... 1 Minister of Immigration on Bill C-86 .................................................... 4 Refugee Issues Misrepresented in Amendments, CCR ........................ 5 CRS Discussion of Bill C-86 ................................................................... 6 No Integrity without an Appeal Esther lshimura .....................................18 CCR Spring 1992 Session Resolutions ....................................................19 Asylum Seekers and the Refugee Determination Procedure, Refugee Council ofAustralia ....................... ......................................... 22 French and other Selected European Perspectives on Asylum Liisa Coulombe ........................................................................................... 25 Book review: Repatriation Under Conflict in Central America Sheilagh Knight-Lira ......................................................................................26 2 Refuge, Vol. 12, No. 2 (July 1992) produce flawed legislation, but do so in a way that alienated many Canadians, particularly those who are supporters of a just and expeditious immigration and News Release From the Office of Blaine Thacker, M.P. refugee process, those whoare the critical House of Commons -June 26,1992 partners in helping to receive and settle immigrants and refugees. Legislative Hearings on Bill C-86 In the face of potential public criticism, the tendency is to manipulate Mr. Blaine Thacker, Member for the constituency of Lethbridge, the process to provide as few Alberta, announced today that Public Hearings will commence on opportunities as possible for the critics to Monday, July 27,1992 with respect to Bill C-86, an Act to amend the be heard and to arrange it so that they are Immigration Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. heard at the most inopportune times and This Bill was given First Reading by the House on June 16,1992 under the worst circumstances. (Short and after Second Reading on June 22, 1992, it was referred to a presentations tend to stimulate shrill Legislative Committee for detailed study. rather than well-considered critiques, for The Honourable John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons, the latter require much more time.) appointed Mr. Blaine Thacker on June 22, 1992 from the Panel of The question is whether we are to have an orchestrated legislative process Chairmen to act as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C- with inadequate time for hearings and 86. consideration of needed amendments- The Members who will be serving this Committee are: that is, are we to get legislationbased on The Honourable Warren Allmand a government initiative and (Notre-Dame-de-Grace,Quebec); communications strategy that under- Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Ontario); mines any critiqumr are we to have a Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Ontario); deliberative process that will reveal the Doug Fee (Red Deer, Alberta); excellent aspects of the Bill while giving Benno Friesen time to correct the flaws? The latter (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, British Columbia); process is much preferred because the Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina, Ontario); natural allies of refugee andimmigration Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie, Quebec) issues will not be alienated, and also Ross Reid (St. John's

Load more