July 4, 1972

IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT

LIB

Stanley Haidasz

Liberal

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved

that Bill C-23, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the warm welcome which hon. members give to this debate on Bill C-23, which I reintroduced last February 25. I hope that they will give favourable consideration to the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act which it contains. As one who took part in the debate on the Immigration Appeal Board Act when it was passed by the House in March, 1967,1 am convinced that the accumulated experi-

July 4, 1972

ence we have had of it over the past five years demonstrates the necessity for a re-appraisal of the legislation, and of amendments to make it more effective. I believe there is urgency to amend the act and to improve the existing regulations.

This need was recognized by the responsible minister in 1970 when he ordered a one man inquiry into the problems arising out of the act, particularly as a result of the large number of appeals against deportation. Today the Immigration Appeal Board is faced with a backlog of approximately 10,000 cases. Furthermore, the board is operating with only seven or eight members, instead of nine as provided by the act. One of the members resigned in April last and no appointment has been made to fill the vacancy. The board has a shortage of members and of staff. It sits in Ottawa and Montreal, and only recently began sitting in Toionto. As a result, it is able to hear just about 100 cases a month. Its 1971 budget of approximately $1 million and its staff of 68 people are not enough to clear the backlog of 10,000 cases. Some of the appellants have been waiting for three years to present their cases. Many hardships are experienced by these people during these long delays and due to the restrictive regulations and the lack of proper counselling.

We welcome the statement which the minister made last month that his department would re-examine its position, and take special measures to deal with the backlog of cases. My proposed amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act number only three, and are easy to understand.

My first proposed amendment is to section 3 and would increase the number of members on the board from nine to at least 14, but not more than 18, to be appointed by Governor in Council. This increase in membership would help the board to hear more cases. As I have already mentioned, there is already a backlog of 10,000 cases. Hearings at the present rate would take ten years to clear that backlog, and the backlog itself is increasing every year.

I also wish to amend section 6 to allow the board to sit in all of the provincial capital cities, and in other cities as required. People have to incur a lot of expense when travelling from Vancouver to Toronto or Ottawa in order to present their cases and make oral submissions to the board. They must also meet the expense of a lawyer, and travelling expenses for any witnesses that they wish to accompany them.

My third amendment concerns section 17. It would add another ground on which the board could quash deportation orders. Members of the board, when hearing an appeal, would also be allowed to take into consideration reasons of merit, not only legal facts, and reasons of a humanitarian and compassionate kind. This could affect exceptional scholars, athletes, and other people who would make good Canadian citizens. At present if they do not qualify under existing regulations, and there are no humanitarian grounds involved, such people are asked to go back to their countries of origin.

However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government should also improve its procedures and services in immigration matters. I believe it should broaden the categories of persons who can launch an appeal, or the category of

Immigration Appeal Board Act

sponsors who can launch an appeal. It should also provide better counselling services. At present we hear many complaints from people who are at the mercy of so-called immigration experts who charge exorbitant prices for their counsel. These people are in no position to pay such high fees, particularly for poor advice. I also believe that the government should inform appellants to a greater degree about their privileges. It should make this information available to appellants in their own languages, so that they may understand it. If the government does not inform people of their rights, then an injustice is done.

Only a few weeks ago we were all shocked by the tragic suicide death of Alicia Wiercioch of Toronto who tried to appeal her deportation but failed and lost all hope. I believe that if some of the measures which the government has already announced are adopted, and some of the amendments which I propose are accepted, many hardships will be eliminated. This afternoon I appeal to all members of the House to put forth their views, and with dispatch send this bill to the appropriate committee of the House for further study and the examination of witnesses if necessary, so that it can be passed, given third reading and sent to the Senate.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some sympathy withh the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) in regard to the motives for presenting this bill but there are some points that I should like to clear up.

The bill which was enacted in 1967 to set up the Immigration Appeal Board contained some very good provisions. Unfortunately, there is one lacunae, and it is one that the Supreme Court of Canada has had to move into under the Grillas case and one or two others in order to give more flexibility to the interpretation of the act. If there is an order for deportation which has been confirmed by the Immigration Appeal Board, no one but the Immigration Appeal Board itself can change the order. If deportation proceedings have gone forward to the point of exit from the country, they cannot be undone. Apparently someone thought that it was absolutely essential to remove all discretion from the minister. Personally, I think that was wrong because it also removed a good deal of humanity from the process of immigration.

I do not think that the difficulty lies with the Immigration Appeal Board and I would have liked the hon. member for Parkdale to give us his views on changes in the Immigration Act, particularly the regulations therein and their interpretation. Every year I have appeared before the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to question, to protest and to call for some action but nothing has been done. There is no flexibility in the consideration of the regulations and the interpretation of them.

To illustrate, at one time if someone representing an immigrant were to inquire as to that person's rating under the point system the file could be seen by counsel or a Member of Parliament. However, because some Members of Parliament dared to raise questions, and in many cases to point out errors and omissions which resulted in a change of verdict, the files have been closed. An applicant

July 4, 1972

Immigration Appeal Board Act

cannot see his assessment, nor can counsel, until the special inquiry and so does not know what type of evidence or questioning is to be faced there. At these special inquiries I have seen questioning which would not be allowed in a court of law where the rules of evidence protect the accused. An immigrant applying for landing is questioned far more irrelevantly than an accused in a criminal court. Is that right? Of course, it is not but it is the practice.

I have asked why an applicant for landing in this country should have to go through the ignominy of a deportation order because he questions the point system. He may merely want to question the assessment, but would have to go through a deportation order and then appeal it. For three years the department has been telling me that this procedure would be changed but we have not seen any progress. It is no wonder people feel despair when they tackle the immigration process. It is a traumatic experience for a stranger to this country, a stranger to our language or culture and our customs, to be faced with this procedure. I would have thought that Canadians would extend a hand of welcome to those people we would like to have join us, but we make it very difficult. The present system is totally wrong for Canada. I would suggest that all those people who came to Canada before the passage of these regulations might be invited to leave because today, according to our regulations, they were admitted under the wrong criteria. But I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the hon. member's bill, I might say that if there were not so many appeals, if the immigration regulations met present day requirements, there would be no need for this great increase in the Immigration Appeal Board. Does it not sound rather ridiculous and paradoxical that the appeals procedure should require a greater number of personnel than the admissions procedure? The Immigration Appeal Board has a large administrative and service payroll and the salary of the commissioners, I might point out, is not as low as that of Members of Parliament. Is it not a sad reflection on the system that we must increase the size of the Appeal Board?

Why should there be almost 10,000 appeals, Mr. Speaker? I know that the system has been abused. The government was warned from the beginning that they were building up difficulties. People are not stupid and they soon find the loopholes. Why do we need 14 to 18 members on the Board? I do not think this will cure the situation at all, nor will the changes made by the government at the present time. I was surprised the hon. member for Park-dale said that he welcomed the changes being made. Of course, they torpedoed the whole system. He either accepted the system as it stood or, if the changes were to be welcome, it meant that the system did not mean anything. The minister, even when the prospective immigrant scores only five points may, under certain circumstances, agree to the landing of an applicant who is here in Canada. These considerations do not affect one iota the individual who is offshore and who is being sponsored.

In most instances, the difficulty lies with those people who have applied to be landed from within Canada. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that subdivisions of the appeal board should be enabled to travel to

provincial capital cities. I recently appeared before the board in a case. There was some question as to whether I should recommend to the appellant and her husband that that young woman, along with a witness and an interpreter, should come all the way from a rural area outside Edmonton to Ottawa to appear before the Board for about 20 minutes. Eventually, I decided to do this by way of affidavit and the case was resolved satisfactorily. The idea of presenting evidence by affidavit represents a terrible dilemma which the average immigrant does face. I have acted in other cases, and the immigrants did not know how to proceed. I am thinking of one case in particular; I suspect I may have to appear on behalf of the parties because they have no money. In that particular case, the sponsor is over 80 and bedridden. Affidavit evidence will be required. Good gracious, there is no way one can get the best possible hearing on the basis of affidavit evidence. Therefore, I fully agree with the second part of the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

As to the third part, speaking as a lawyer, I suggest that is superfluous because, in the appeal part of the act there is provision for reasons of merit. The proposed section reads in part:

A person ... may appeal . .. from a refusal to approve the application, and if the Board decides that the person whose admission is being sponsored and the sponsor of that person meet all the requirements of the Immigration Act-

The requirements of the Immigration Act include reasons of merit. I continue:

-and the regulations made thereunder relevant to the approval of the application or that there exist compassionate or humanitarian considerations-

That is the wording of the act, as well. The hon. member would add, "or reasons of merit". There is already, within the Immigration Appeal Board Act, provision for granting landed status on compassionate grounds.

Let me cite a case I was on last month. After the deportation order had been made, the young person involved had married and had a child. If that person were deported, it would mean that the mother and child would be separated. The board was not greatly concerned about the husband; he was innocent in this case, not having known of the deportation order. There was no way that the board could separate the mother and child; there was no way, also, for the mother to be sent back to her country, with any guarantee of coming back to rejoin her husband and their child. Therefore on compassionate grounds, for the sake of the child, the board was able to review its previous decision, discharge the order for deportation and immediately direct the landing as an immigrant of the young woman who was now married to a Canadian and the mother of a child born in Canada. It is for reasons like that that section 17 is included in the act. I would say, therefore, that the third clause proposed by the hon. member is a tautology, since the matter is already covered in the existing section.

I have made my observations on the other clauses. I think, myself, that the bill ought to be sent to committee so that these various matters may be examined and, if necessary, amendments put forward.

July 4, 1972

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I rise, briefly, to support the general proposals put forward by the sponsor of this bill. In sponsoring this bill, it seems to me the hon. member is dealing only with a small part of existing difficulties in this area. These difficulties are well known to every member of this House and particularly well known to those hon. members who represent urban centres in which there are large ethnic populations.

We last amended the Immigration Act and set up the Immigration Appeal Board some five years ago. We thought that we had adequately dealt with the difficulties then apparent. Obviously, we dealt with them in a somewhat imperfect and half-hearted way.

The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), when introducing this bill, told us that about 10,000 appeals are pending and that the board, as presently constituted, can deal only with about 1,200 cases per year. Obviously, unless drastic changes are made, the situation will become worse. It already is intolerable. Let me commend the present minister for doing as he proposed several weeks ago and attempting to clean up the backlog of immigration cases. Although I commend his intentions, his methods entail ignoring the immigration law and ignoring the regulations drafted and approved by the government he supports.

The present immigration law and the regulations drafted thereunder have led to the tremendous numbers of people appealing their cases. In recent years, fewer immigrants have come to Canada than in earlier years, owing, I suppose to the downturn in Canada's economy. People in western Europe, where there is virtually no unemployment, are not likely to rush to Canada, where unemployment, seasonally adjusted, has been running at 6 per cent for two years and more. Although fewer people have tried to enter Canada, more people than ever have appealed to the board. This has resulted partly from our previous revision of the law. When we last revised the act we inserted a clause which permitted people who had come to Canada as visitors to apply for landed immigrant status and so stay in Canada permanently. Previously, we had not permitted that. Under present procedures, large numbers of people are coming to Canada as visitors and then applying for permission to stay in Canada permanently. If their application is turned down by the department, they appeal the deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Board, as is their right. As a result, the number of appeal cases has increased, and it has been difficult for the board to deal with the increased number of appeals.

Although I agree in general with the proposals of the hon. member for Parkdale and think that these should form the basis for discussion in committee, either during the present session or in future, I submit that we need to look at the entire act and all the regulations. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has already referred to some of the anomalies that arise under the act. When a person applies and does not score the 50 points required if he is to stay here, he is not told how many points he scored or why he was turned down. We need more public information about the criteria used.

Immigration Appeal Board Act

Let me join with the hon. member for Edmonton West in saying I deplore the decision we made in 1967, I think it was, to remove from the minister the discretionary power which he possessed. I know it has been said that ministers are subject to political pressure. I can only speak for myself. I have dealt with a fairly large number of cases in the ten years in which I have been in Ottawa as a Member of Parliament: not as many, I am sure, as members from cities such as Toronto but, nevertheless, a considerable number of cases.

Speaking for myself, when having taken up a case with the minister or the department I have been shown that the application about which I have been making inquiries did not meet the law or the regulations, I have immediately dropped the case. I assume that other Members of Parliament follow the same practice. But when the minister possessed discretionary power, a Member of Parliament and, I presume, anybody else who took up a case with the department, was in a better position. I have found successive ministers responsible for the Immigration Department-and there have been a number of them in my time-to be reasonable, decent people.

When I had the opportunity to take up a case on the basis of common sense, on the basis of compassion, I cannot think of a case in my ten years when I felt the minister was being insensitive. I believe the hon. member for Parkdale would agree with me that had the Toronto case to which he referred happened while the minister possessed discretionary power, it could have been taken up with the minister and permission to stay would have been granted.

So I think this situation has to be looked at. The regulations need to be examined. The whole act needs to be examined. I commend the minister for what he did a couple of weeks ago. At the same time, his action demonstrated the bankruptcy of the present law, of the present regulations and of the procedures we now follow. We can excuse a crash program of clearing up a backlog which has now become intolerable. It certainly should not be allowed to happen again. It is the responsibility of the government to amend the Immigration Act, to amend the act dealing with the Immigration Appeal Board and to change the regulations so that the situation which has arisen in recent years does not recur. I certainly support the proposals made in this bill and I support reference to a committee, but I believe we must get down to making more fundamental changes than are proposed here.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan

Liberal

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) for bringing this subject before us. He has already given me instructions: I do not know whether you heard him, Mr. Speaker, but he said, "Don't talk it out." I do not intend to do that, but I believe there are statements I should put on record agreeing with what he said and others which perhaps reflect a somewhat different view.

What is the Immigration Appeal Board, and what are its functions? I have heard many people speak in this House about immigration. I have heard people talking on radio about immigration. I have heard great newsmen giving their views on immigration one morning, on transporta-

July 4, 1972

Immigration Appeal Board Act

tion the next, and maybe on agriculture the next. I wonder how the same persons can be such experts, telling the nation what should be done about these difficult problems during a five-minute period early in the morning. I have heard them at it at night, too-different people.

I have appeared before the Immigration Appeal Board both as a witness and acting on behalf of immigrants who could not afford high-priced lawyers to appear for them. Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot charge them anything: I do this out of what I feel to be my duty as a Member of Parliament to look after these people when no one else seems to be looking after them. I may say I have yet to see a member of the press gallery attend an Immigration Appeal Board hearing. Maybe it has happened lately. These hearings are open to the public, but I have never seen a press reporter there and it beats me how they can be so knowledgeable in these circumstances. This goes for some members of the House, too, who speak about immigration but have never attended one of these hearings. They do not know what they are talking about. The Immigration Appeal Board is one of the fairest boards I have ever appeared before-and I have been in public life for 27 years and appeared before a great many boards at various levels. I disagree with the hon. member for Park-dale that the board does not take humanitarian grounds into consideration.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Stanley Haidasz

Liberal

Mr. Haidasz:

I did not say that.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

Well, I got the feeling that you did. Perhaps I misinterpreted the hon. member. I wish to say the board does act on humanitarian grounds and has done so in many of the cases in connection with which I have appeared before it.

The Immigration Appeal Board is made up of nine members. Who are they? I recently read an editorial in the Sun: I do not know whether the sun has risen yet or not, but if it is as inaccurate in all its articles as it was in that editorial, it has not. It called the members of the board political hacks and asked what they knew about immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to check the background of these people, their experience and the contribution they have made to our society. There is a group of highly qualified people who understand human nature, who understand human feelings. Their qualifications are high, in fact higher than those possessed by members of most boards of which I have had experience. One did not always win the case in which one was interested, but on leaving a hearing-which was always conducted by at least three members-one always felt it had been a good hearing, an honest hearing and that the members were really concerned about the people involved.

As a Member of Parliament I never presented a case before the board or appeared as a witness until I had personally investigated the applicant. I make the charge that many lawyers take money from these people without doing a proper job of investigating their backgrounds. They then blame the board, saying they did not get a fair hearing. I recall a case in which a large sum of money was taken from a would-be landed immigrant against whom a deportation order had been issued, and because my letter did not reach the board in time for the hearing they said

the case had been lost. Can you imagine-a letter which cost me only a few cents, which was sent under my franking privileges and which got there one day late, was said to be insufficient to win the case! And they had charged this immigrant over $1,000! I say, shame on these people who take this money from people they know to be desperate. I know they have slackened the reins on this one.

There is a provision in the Immigration Appeal Board Act that provides for the cost of transportation and legal costs for such people. Yet I have yet to see this done. The hon. member's motion is a good one, though he seems to think I doubt that. The board can be enlarged and do a tremendous job. It can be composed of highly qualified people who can make independent decisions. We all know of many good prospects who are looking for such jobs. Who are they? In my area there are people who are retired-bankers who have retired before the age of 60 and are members of the teaching profession. They are still highly qualified citizens who have been dealing with the public all their lives and would accept a five-year appointment on such a board. As far as I am concerned, they would do a wonderful job. They would also be independent of the civil service.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

Are they Liberals?

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

I do not care what their politics are, as long as they are qualified. There are some Conservatives who would qualify for such a position, as well as members of the NDP. We even appointed one to be chairman of the citizenship court. A lot of people could qualify for this job and they would be independent, which is something that both we and the country want.

It has been suggested that these appeals should be handled by the bureaucrats. Have you ever seen, Mr. Speaker, one bureaucrat overrule the decision of another bureaucrat? I have yet to see that. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out that section 29 was tested in the Supreme Court because it was wrongly interpreted. I say it is still being wrongly interpreted. Section 29 gives the reviewing officers power to review an appellant's case before it goes to the Immigration Appeal Board. If a person is able to prove that he has adjusted to the Canadian way of life and has established himself, then he is given extra points to enable him to qualify as a landed immigrant. This is all the minister of immigration is proposing at the present time, and I say the proposal is long overdue.

I should like to make one thing clear at this point. Many articles in the papers have stated that the death of the unfortunate woman in Toronto who took her life was a factor in the suggested changes made by the minister of immigration. This is not the case. Several weeks before this occurrence I attended several meetings with the minister, and although we did not know what the minister was going to propose we knew he was going to make some proposals within a short time. During the interim, this unfortunate occurrence took place; but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the minister's decision.

We are all concerned about the backlog of appeals by people who want to remain in Canada, but I would like to

July 4, 1972

know why some members say it is a bad thing that so many want to stay. I saw an article recently which stated that 30 million tourists a year visit Canada. Are they suggesting that we prevent these tourists from coming here? Over the course of three years there have been 10,000 appeals from people wishing to remain, which gives us a percentage of one-ninth of one per cent who decide to stay in Canada. Ten thousand out of ninety million is a very small fraction.

Many of these would-be immigrants have no way of receiving a proper hearing in their own country when they apply to come to Canada. Is it so wrong that when these people come here, they like what they see and want to remain? Have hon. members ever bought a car, a tractor or taken a wife without first seeing the product? Why should these people not have the right to see what could be theirs for the rest of their lives? I say that the principle of letting visitors to this country apply for landed immigrant status is a correct one.

Hon. members declare that these people are bypassing the procedure. I have a case in my files of a person who wanted to bring his sister to Canada. The department sent him a form letter which was almost the same as one sent the previous year, and the decision was that the sister should stay with this person's brother. It turned out that the brother had died and the mother migrated to Canada. This is the sort of review that applicants get. The department was in error. This proved to me that the department did not even review the application. So how can I feel that these overseas officers do their job properly? How do I know that the same thing is not happening in many other cases?

Some people go so far as to say that we do not need any more immigrants. I wonder how these people reach such a decision. Is their idea that we should aid people in foreign countries, but that we must not let them come to Canada and share what we have? Some environmentalists are declaring that we already have sufficient people in Canada, with 22 million, and that we do not need any more. I say shame on them and on anyone else who adopts that philosophy. This is a great, big country with room for many more people.

There are those who say, "Let us have immigration, but selective immigration. Let us just admit the educated, those whom we steal from other countries, because it is easier and cheaper to do it in that way." I recently attended a high school graduation. Two of the students who received very high awards and scholarships would not have done so had their parents not established themselves in Canada. One of these kids would be running around the hills of Italy, picking up branches to cook low-nutrient soup; the other would be running around the hills of Serbia trying to find something to eat. However, under a Liberal immigration policy they came to this country; one of them is now training to be a doctor and the other is entering the field of higher education, both having achieved outstanding scholastic qualifications.

I could go on and talk about this subject, but may I merely say I am sick and tired of people like that great Conservative by the name of Sedgwick who brought in the most damnable report the government has received. I myself could have written a more human and realistic

Immigration Appeal Board Act

report. According to his report, he contacted many members of the House of Commons-but I should like to know who the hell they were, because he certainly did not contact me. I know more about immigration than he ever will.

Let me say something about the refugees that we quickly screen and admit to Canada. I say there is nothing wrong with that. Most people think this is a good thing. Canada was the first country in the world to admit tuberculosis patients and send them to hospital. There is a plaque in the library acknowledging the fact that we were the first nation in the world to do this. We also let political refugees into this country. Yet now we are asked to be restrictive! I don't care who it is, Members of Parliament, members of the press gallery, members of the judiciary or any others-they don't know what they are talking about when they speak about immigration. But they ask us to be restrictive!

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Let it come to a vote.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Keep talking.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

I could not hear all that was being said over there, Mr. Speaker, but I gather some hon. members think what I am saying is not sincere. I suggest that perhaps this is a good motion and we should pass it this afternoon so these people can be appointed tomorrow. As I have suggested on several occasions, I agree with the hon. member for Parkdale. This is something we should have had a long time ago, when perhaps we would not have this backlog.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Let it go to a vote.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Eugene Whelan

Liberal

Mr. Whelan:

Hon. members can have a vote or whatever they want. Our Immigration Appeal Board may not be the best possible procedure, and perhaps not as good as it should be; but I suggest it is not all bad.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Stanley Haidasz

Liberal

Mr. Haidasz:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan). I should like to stress once again, for clarification and in order that there is no misconception, that I did not complain that the Immigration Appeal Board was not taking into consideration humanitarian and compassionate reasons. As I stated, there are no federal funds available for legal counsel to assist appellants in defence against deportation orders. The only free legal advice they receive is that provided under legal aid in those provinces which have such a system. We do not have legal aid for needy persons in all provinces in Canada. I checked this an hour ago with the registrar of the Immigration Appeal Board, and he said the board only pays reasonable travelling and

3752

July 4, 1972

Immigration Appeal Board Act

living expenses in connection with the attendance of the person before the board.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
LIB

Walter Cyril Deakon

Liberal

Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park-Humber Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this motion.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Now we are going to hear it.

Topic:   PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENTS TO ENLARGE BOARD, PERMIT SITTINGS IN PROVINCIAL CAPITALS AND WIDEN GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Permalink

July 4, 1972