Bill C-31 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Border Crossings

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly shameful to see how Canada has become a laughingstock in recent days because of our national security.

For days, the Minister of Public Safety has stubbornly repeated that all is well at the Stanstead border crossing. He continues to ignore the situation and repeats that Bill C-31 will magically solve the problem of smugglers. In the meantime, 11 people managed to cross the border and were not intercepted until they reached Magog.

It is time for the minister to realize that Bill C-31 is an utter failure and that cuts will not solve anything at the Canada Border Services Agency.

Will the minister finally take the situation seriously and wake up once and for all?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, Canadians continue to be concerned about the Conservative government's plans for immigration and refugees as expressed in Bill C-31. This petition widely criticizes the government and raises several concerns about this issue. I would like to table that today as well.

Public Safety

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we do know that it is not the NDP that is preventing any of that, whether it is drug trafficking, human trafficking or guns. That party voted consistently against all of the measures, including Bill C-31, that this government has taken in order to stop those measures.

The member can go back to his constituents and tell them that he sat down on the job when he should have been standing up and voting with us on Bill C-31.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions, our government increased front-line officers by 26%, but while we were doing that, that member was voting against Bill C-31, the legislation that provides tools to address exactly the issue the member is now complaining about.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I was really glad to hear what you had to say, Ms. Douglas. I'm also someone who cares a lot about human rights. We probably have a lot in common. I created the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is there to stand up for Canadian individuals when governments are pushing them around.

I think if we ask the wrong question, we may end up with the wrong answer. If we ask whether we have concerns about people who are wrongly detained, I would say yes, I regret that there are people who are detained who ultimately should not have been detained. If instead we ask whether we should close down the whole refugee system because we can't identify people, or because we don't have the security measures in place, then obviously, we'd be denying all those people who are truly being persecuted in their far-off lands. You and I and everyone else in the room would say that this was a wrong decision.

I think the parallel, and I'll get Mr. Grant to comment on this in a second, is whether we abandon our criminal justice system for fear of a wrongful conviction. We're humans, and we have imperfect human institutions, and there will be mistakes, no matter what we do. But most people would say that we still need a criminal justice system. Then we work progressively to improve its accuracy.

What I understand we're doing by looking at things like biometrics is improving the accuracy of our decisions so that we are, in fact, going to be detaining the right people. We will still detain people who ought ultimately not to have been detained, but that's the price for having the refugee system, isn't it?

I looked back at your comments in April when you were discussing Bill C-31. You said that you were concerned about the characterization of refugees and that the Canadian people may develop an increasingly negative perception of refugees. Wouldn't it be true that they would be even more negative if we didn't have security provisions in place to give them confidence that we can continue our refugee program?

Could you comment on that?

[Debbie Douglas]

When we look at the examples from our allies around the world who have alternative to detention programs, they do a test based on vulnerability and therefore risk.

For example, women who are travelling with their children are often not detained when there is a reasonable belief that they do not pose a threat. Often they are put in alternative shelters while their identity documents are being worked out.

Sometimes folks come from countries where it is not possible to determine their identities. We do have failed states and people make their way to our country. The question then becomes, do you keep those people in detention indefinitely, or do you take the reasonable risk that they are not a threat to us and place them in more appropriate shelter or living arrangements? That is certainly something we could take a look at.

What was interesting when we were having this conversation in Buffalo with our U.S. counterparts is they said that over the last four years Homeland Security made an intentional decision to switch their focus and resources around issues of criminality. Instead of going after folks for immigration purposes, for ID purposes, and detaining them, they put all their resources into going after those who had committed crimes, whom they had deported but who had come back into the country and were continuing to commit crimes. Then they worked with, unfortunately in the United States it's for-profit organizations, to create an alternative to the other folks whom they were dealing with on immigration and ID issues only.

I think there's a conversation to be had here in Canada in terms of what we should be doing other than detaining everyone until we determine their identity or because they've come in through what we deem to be irregular arrivals or whatever the implementation of Bill C-31 is going to bring.

[Debbie Douglas]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dykstra, when we received the invitation we looked very carefully at the scope of the study, and we made sure that detention and deportation would fit within the scope of the study. That is why we have chosen to speak to these two issues this afternoon.

In terms of the children, it has been well documented that the incarceration of anyone, but particularly children, has a detrimental effect. The front line workers in OCASI's member agencies often speak to this.

Many of those in detention are coming from traumatizing situations, and being detained retraumatizes them. We believe that the trauma done to children is deeply troubling, and is something that will have long-term effects.

While statistics show that the majority of those who are detained are let go within about 20 days, a significant number of people are detained for much longer. The longer they are held, the worse they are affected, and the greater difficulty they have in adjusting to life outside of detention.

Detention is an expensive proposition for the government, in terms of the damage it does to human beings and the long-term health and social costs, but also in terms of economic costs, such as the costs of building and maintaining detention facilities around the country. We anticipate that with the implementation of Bill C-31 we will see those numbers increasing.

I've said all of this because I want to talk about alternatives to detention.

I, too, attended the bilateral meeting that was held a couple of weeks ago, which was co-hosted by the Canadian branch of UNHCR as well as the U.S. branch of UNHCR. Both Citizenship and Immigration and CBSA presented, along with their colleagues from Australia, the U.S., and Sweden. What was surprising to those who were representing Canada there is that we seem to be way behind in terms of any formal program that looks at alternatives to detention.

You heard from the previous witness that Australia in particular has programs where they've built in conditions that address issues of security. We're not talking about looking at alternatives to detention that would allow, for example, war criminals to get out of detention, but about paying particular attention to those who are at low risk, those who are vulnerable, for example, pregnant woman or people in the deportation stream who are ready to go home and have no need to be in detention.

Here in Canada the only program we are able to point to as an example is the Toronto bail program. It's certainly something we can build on. Australia works very closely with the Red Cross, but also with other civil society organizations and NGOs. They have set up quite extensive and effective programs where those who do not belong in detention and are going through the process, either for ID purposes or deportation purposes, are able to live in the community until such time as they are removed from the country. We believe—and they have testified to the fact—that this is certainly more humane and cost-effective. Compliance is in the 90th percentile.

It is certainly something I'm strongly recommending. The time has come for us as a country to look at a national formal alternative to detention program. I would love to have a conversation about that when I'm finished.

Before my time is up, I also want to talk about the second point, which is the impact of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. My concerns are based on two factors. First—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I know that Ms. Douglas has strong feelings, which I happen to disagree with, about detention, and that's fine. That's the great thing about this country. But the fact is we are dealing with the security of this country in terms of how we can make sure our borders are more secure. I fail to understand the relevance of how children not being with their parents in detention, or the age of those children, is relevant. It was very relevant with respect to Bill C-31. In fact, we changed the clauses within the legislation based on some of the presentations, such as Ms. Douglas's. But I really would like to hear what she believes will make for a stronger secure border, and not necessarily about issues which, while relevant to the ministry, are not relevant to what we're working on right now.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Ms. Douglas, I really appreciate your being here today. You know a lot, and you did a great job on Bill C-31 in terms of presenting your position. But we're studying the security boundaries of the country, and I hope you're going to get to that point. I know your feelings—

[Debbie Douglas]

I promise not to use up my whole 10 minutes, after my last time here and your great patience with my going over time.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I want to thank you again for this opportunity. I apologize for not having copies of my remarks for you. Time ran away on us, unfortunately.

We would like to address two items in your area of study. I will begin with the issue of detention.

The committee has already heard that the majority of people detained for immigration reasons are being held because of identity issues, or because they are waiting to be deported and have been considered a flight risk. The majority of those in detention are in immigration holding cells and the rest are in provincial jails.

We are deeply concerned about both situations, but especially the latter, the fact that people who have not been charged or convicted of a crime are being held in the same conditions as those who have are being punished.

While immigration holding centres are different from provincial jails inside, whenever the person needs to go outside for something such as medical attention, she is often handcuffed and shackled and treated as if she were a criminal. I know you have that report. It was part of the presentation to you by Dr. Cleveland in April on Bill C-31.

We know that people being held in immigration detention will often forgo medical treatment because they wish to avoid the humiliation and trauma of being treated like a common criminal.

Children in detention are an ongoing concern. I know that my colleague, Jenny Jeanes, spoke to that as well. Already they are being held with their parents under our current laws.

We were glad to see that when Bill C-31 came back, the government had removed the automatic detention of children. While it's not written into Bill C-31, the reality is that unfortunately, young children will end up in detention with their parents because otherwise, they will be separated from the only person—or persons, if both parents are being detained—they know and trust, as opposed to being left with strangers.

Either situation seriously affects children and their parents. It is not surprising then that many parents choose to have their children with them. I think the last time I was here I talked about that as putting parents in a position of no choice, where they have to choose between having their children detained or giving them up to the custody of the state.

Our concern includes as well that children between 16 and 18 years are detained. The committee has heard from government witnesses that 500 children were in detention last year, and these were refugee cases. Some of our colleagues who have appeared before this committee have already noted that those figures may not capture the full scope of which children are in detention with their parents—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes, but if the state determines within that 48-hour timeframe that the person doesn't qualify for refugee status and then sends him back, my point is that there are countries in the world that have a lot less of a timeframe to prepare a case than we do in Canada, and that is with Bill C-31.

It leads me, Ms. Jeanes, to a couple of points. One of the points you made when you were here with respect to Bill C-31 was to request, as many of the witnesses did, that we go to the facilities across the country. We did. We went to all three of them. We viewed them in-depth and went through each and every one of them. In fact, we had lunch at Laval just to get a clear understanding of what the food was like there, because that was another one of the complaints that a number of you brought forward.

You said today that although we went, one day doesn't qualify as a true interpretation of what happens there. I have to say that while I have my own specific understanding after visiting the three facilities which model we should be running, Laval isn't one of them. I find that the comments of organizations that are not Amnesty International and are not Red Cross....

You don't have any specific obligation under any provincial or federal government jurisdiction. You're free to go there and visit with potential refugees and those who are being detained there, but you don't have any official responsibility to do so on behalf of any government.

[Jenny Jeanes]

Okay.

However, most of the families that I have met in detention include young children between zero and five, even breast-feeding children, where it is not reasonable or even possible for the children to be separated from their parents. One of the key problems with accompanying children is that the IRB does not consider the best interests of these children when deciding whether to maintain detention for or release the parents.

I would like to share stories of some of the families we have met in detention.

One is about a woman refugee claimant from Ethiopia and her three children, ages four years, three years, and eight months. At her seven day review, her lawyer presented a known shelter for women and children refugees as an alternative to detention, arguing that considerations should be given to the presence of three young minors in detention. However, detention was maintained, and the family spent 29 days in detention, during which the children were ill and had to be taken several times to hospital.

A female refugee claimant from Somalia was held with her young son who was quite ill. After more than 40 days their detention was once again maintained, despite affidavits from family members in Canada as to their identity, despite the presence of an alternative, and despite arguments about the child's health.

Some parents share with us the difficulties their children face in detention, including fear, trouble eating or sleeping, or physical discomforts. Other parents indicate that while their children do not seem disturbed by being in the centre, their own stress and anxiety have negative effects on their children.

The next point I would like to address is that of the detention of vulnerable persons, including the elderly, those experiencing physical or mental illness, pregnant women, or unaccompanied minors.

One of the problems that arises with vulnerable persons who are detained for identity is that once the decision has been made to arrest and detain, vulnerability is no longer directly relevant to the decision to release or maintain detention. There is no clear direction for either CBSA or the IRB to consider release due to vulnerability or compelling circumstances.

In 2009, I met a 75-year-old woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo in the holding centre, a refugee claimant detained on identity. She had a significant language barrier and health problems. An alternative was offered from the day she was detained in the form of a community worker who spoke her language and was willing to provide shelter and support. This alternative was endorsed by her designated representative, a social worker. However, the woman spent 17 days in detention, which was very difficult for her since she was unwell and had trouble communicating even via an interpreter.

In our experience, many vulnerable people end up in detention, which creates an enormous strain not only on them, but on CBSA's resources, and yet often suitable alternatives exist. It would seem there is a lack of clarity as to how to address vulnerability.

In 2010, CBSA conducted its own internal review process called “CBSA Detentions and Removals Programs - Evaluation Study”. In the final report released in November 2010, CBSA identified areas for improvement in detention, including better training on mental illness, and the need for clearer guidelines as to how to address vulnerable persons, since the wording of enforcement manuals was found to be insufficient. This was seen to result in inconsistencies across Canada. For example, minors, persons with mental health issues or other special needs were extremely unlikely to be detained in the Atlantic and prairie regions, unlike other regions.

A special mention should be made of unaccompanied minors. Although there is greater clarity in the law and regulations as to detention being a last resort, we have seen numerous cases of unaccompanied minors spending nearly a month or longer in detention, despite alternatives existing. In one fairly dramatic case, the unaccompanied minor herself had a baby with her, was breast feeding, and had family members with whom she could stay in Canada.

My next point focuses on the inability for IRB members to adequately review detention on identity grounds. Unlike flight risk or danger to the public, immigration division members cannot overturn the initial decision to detain on identity made by a CBSA officer, no matter how much evidence the detainee has provided, or how fully they are collaborating, and certainly not based on any compelling circumstances.

Sometimes new evidence is provided at detention reviews that was not available to the arresting or investigating officer, including new documents or significant testimony. Board members' experience in handling detention cases allows them to develop a familiarity with the identity issues, but they do not have the power to satisfy themselves of the person's identity, no matter how much experience they have.

In one case, a Kurdish refugee claimant appeared for review after having spent 40 days in detention on identity grounds, in part due to doubts as to the authenticity of two UNHCR identity documents. At the review, a letter from the UNHCR was provided to the board member confirming the authenticity of the documents; however, the board member was unable to render a decision on identity and instead provided an additional 12 days of detention for CBSA to confirm the information.

In other cases, documents with security features have been found to be authentic and verifications completed, yet CBSA calls for detention to be maintained for other factors, such as waiting for a passport to arrive. In such cases, the board member is unable to overturn CBSA's opinion on identity even when multiple elements confirming identity are present.

All of these factors place a strain on CBSA resources when alternatives are often possible, but I would like to focus on the strain it places on detainees. During our weekly visits, we hear from refugee claimants about how hard they find detention.

One of the most common things we hear about is the shame they feel at wearing handcuffs. Handcuffs are a powerful symbol of punishment for most. We also hear about the shame of being under constant surveillance, the fear of deportation, and chronic physical discomfort such as constipation and fatigue.

We regularly meet detainees who speak no English or French.

The toll that detention takes on the mental health of refugee claimants has been documented in the research of Janet Cleveland from McGill University.

There is the added stress of having to prepare one's refugee claim while in detention, with no privacy and with obstacles to communicating with family or legal counsel. Detainees regularly express distress at having to prepare their personal information form within 28 days. This will be exacerbated with the shorter delays under Bill C-31.

In light of all these observations, I believe there is the potential for far more consideration of alternatives to detention by both CBSA and the IRB. This would reduce the human costs of detention and also the considerable financial costs.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in a binational round table meeting on alternatives to detention, which was organized by the UNHCR. Many examples of alternatives were provided. It was clear that alternatives can be effective and necessary, and that one key element is to develop tools for early screening of vulnerable persons.

The UNHCR has published new guidelines on detention that provide fresh direction to states as to when detention is reasonable, proportionate, and necessary, and when alternatives are appropriate. They call for an assessment of the overall reasonableness of detention, taking into consideration all factors, including special needs or considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 53. Orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), are our study on “Standing on Guard for Thee: Ensuring that Canada's Immigration System is Secure”.

For the first hour we have two witnesses. One is here with us today all the way from Montreal. From Action Réfugiés, we have Jenny Jeanes. You have been with us before, on Bill C-31. You're the program coordinator. Thank you for coming again today.

All the way from London, England, by video conference, we have Lutz Oette, counsel with the group REDRESS. Sir, can you hear me?

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This legislation includes many provisions relating to immigration. Some are valid and interesting, while others seem less appropriate.

In short, the bill grants more power to the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. It removes the minister's responsibility to review humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It grants the minister a new discretionary power to issue an exemption for a member of the family of a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible. The bill also amends the definition of “serious criminality” to restrict access to the appeal process following an inadmissibility ruling. It increases the penalty for false representation and, finally, it clarifies the fact that entering the country by resorting to criminal activities does not automatically lead to inadmissibility.

I would like to begin by sharing something with hon. members. I am always a bit uncomfortable when we talk about immigration, and that is for a very simple reason: I am not myself an immigrant. I live in the country in which I was born. I never have to question myself. I live in my home country, with my relatives and with my language. My cultural references are the same as those of the majority around me. I never had to consider emigration as an option. If I left to live elsewhere, it would only be for a while. It would not be emigration but, rather, an extended stay.

I know what I am talking about, because I lived abroad. I once was the one who had to adapt. I had to work hard to learn how to function in a foreign language that I did not fully master. I developed new social skills that I was not familiar with. In Russia, I changed. I developed a bit of Russian in me. Thanks to this subtle change, by the time I left Moscow, I had acquired a Slavic heritage that will always stay with me. Mores vary from one country to another.

At the same time, because I was forced to adapt to this otherness, I was becoming increasingly more Quebecker and Canadian. I understood more clearly what it meant to be born in Canada. I could not but realize that the relationship I had with my country was one of trust. I knew that Canada would always be there for me.That trust generated a feeling of pride. I am convinced that many here know what I am talking about.

If I mention my stay in Russia, it is because I want to make us think. During the debate on Bill C-43, we should think about our relationship with the rest of the world. We have been debating the reform of the immigration system since last fall. I am referring to Bill C-4 and Bill C-31. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, because it gives me a chance to level a criticism at the government. Not only am I not pleased with the tone used by the government when it talks about immigration and refugees, but I am even more upset by the tone and the comments of some members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I do not want to preach to anyone, but, for me, it is important to distance myself from the unenlightened remarks we sometimes hear. Pride in one's own country should not give rise to disdain for another's. Nor should it necessarily give rise to an undue fear of foreigners. That is silly and simplistic.

I remain convinced that the government's interest in ethnic communities that have settled in Canada is purely mercenary. The government is not comfortable with immigration and even less so with refugees. My impression is that they see jihadists and smugglers everywhere. I am not accusing them of that; it is just the impression I get. I am sorry.

That said, of the three government bills to reform the immigration system, Bill C-43 is the least contentious. It deals with the faster removal of dangerous criminals.

Who could be opposed to that, really? Not the Canadian public, not the NDP. Canada is not a haven for failed tyrants, multimillionaire dictators and petty mafiosi of every description.

In support of this bill, the government wants to show us lists of expert witnesses who agree that dangerous criminals should not be allowed into the country. Really? What a revelation.

I can assure the government that no one, anywhere, wants people who are guilty of serious crimes to be walking free among us and abusing our hospitality.

But I wonder what the government plans to do in order to really crack down on these criminals and to protect Canadians. That is the burning question because the answer is turning out to be a little disappointing.

Basically, Bill C-43 gives more discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. The minister will be the one to decide who can stay and who must leave right away. So he will become a kind of James Bond, working 28-hour days to protect Canadians from evil, twisted foreigners and their illicit master plans.

Bill C-43, like Bill C-4, gives the minister more arbitrary powers. I am well aware that we have to crack down on criminals who would come here and put our peaceful communities at risk. No one would ever say otherwise; but why must it be the minister who decides?

The answer is simple. It is so the minister can cut off the appeals launched by those charged with crimes. The minister could then decide to kick out anyone filing an appeal, or, let us come right out and say it, everyone filing an appeal.

All this will help us save time and money and will send the problem far, far away to other less sympathetic shores. When you get rid of a problem, have you not solved it?

With this bill, the government says it is attacking a specific, urgent problem by creating a legal limbo and opening the door to arbitrary measures. This is worrying. How far will the minister's authority go? Where will the limits to these new powers be set?

I just want to say to the government and to the minister that granting discretionary authority is not the answer to every problem. The minister cannot micromanage everything by himself in his office as soon as an exceptional case turns up. That is not a system, that is a despot.

Another very important detail is that they want to prevent all family members of a convicted criminal from visiting Canada. They have been careful to cast a wide net. The idea behind this is that the members of a Mafia family, or some kind of gang or the families of overthrown dictators will not be able to come to Canada and will not be able to bring their problems here. It is clearly a desirable goal, in and of itself. However, there are always exceptional cases, even though they are rare, and the minister's discretionary powers will not be intermittent. They will be enshrined in legislation and create a legal limbo that will last forever.

Furthermore, this is a huge undertaking. All family members of criminals sentenced here or abroad will have to be identified, and the road to Canada barred for them. Since the departmental cuts were made, this difficult task will have to be carried out quickly and well with fewer human resources.

The government wants to get rid of the backlog in the immigration system by creating massive research projects for immigration office employees. I imagine there is no other solution.

What I am saying is that the substance is good, but the form seems deficient. The government wants to protect Canadians and better manage our immigration system. The New Democratic Party recognizes that immigration is a priceless resource for Canada and wants to ensure that our system is effective, professional, swift and reliable.

The NDP also recognizes that action must indeed be taken to prevent the abuse of our system. The government is trying to resolve the issue, but it is going about it the wrong way. We think this is a worthwhile bill and that it must be studied in committee. We have already said that Bill C-43 has many admirable elements that deserve our support. In particular, the NDP is pleased that the bill exonerates the victims of human smugglers and that their victim status is guaranteed. Apparently, the government has learned not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism when he introduced his bill. I find it somewhat disorienting to hear him use the word “foreigner” to describe people who have not officially obtained their Canadian citizenship even though they are permanent residents.

All of us, without exception, are the descendants of immigrants. I am getting tired of seeing the Conservatives dismantle what has taken decades to build: Canada's reputation as a compassionate, equitable and fair country. A country that stands up for itself, that knows how to say yes, but also knows how to say no and how to show someone the door when it is necessary, as is the case with serious criminals. I do not want to hear that such and such a budget has tripled; frankly, in a department the size of Immigration, money is not everything. We are not dealing with columns of numbers. We are dealing with human beings who have often been more unlucky than we have. I would appreciate it if the government would stop hiding behind its accounting ledgers.

In conclusion, I am aware that the Conservative government has had to tackle immigration reform but is not terribly interested in it. And with good reason. As soon as the word “immigration” is spoken on the other side of the House, the word “economic” follows in the next sentence. They do not understand that some departments have obligations to the public, and are not just companies that must make a profit. A country is not run the same way as a business. But I am wasting my breath trying to tell them so.

Some institutions exist for reasons that are not strictly economic. Immigration is an inevitable global phenomenon and it will increase in the years to come. Canada would be well-advised to have its immigration system structured by people who see beyond simple economic interests.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government has tagged it with new lines, calling it the faster removal of foreign criminals act. It is unfortunate that these types of titles have now been introduced into legislation that is supposed to be very serious. This one is very serious. It is a continuation of our immigration drift.

We are going to support the bill to get it to committee because as New Democrats we believe our immigration system is fundamentally flawed and broken, and we are open to discussing how to improve it in any capacity. Some of the issues in the bill are going to be raised, and we will have some good expert testimony at committee to talk about these issues.

It is important to note that our immigration system is necessary in our country for us to function in an economic democracy. We do not have a population that can sustain itself alone.

We have been founded on the principles of multiculturalism and openness. That is changing because we are slowly eroding our immigration system. In fact, even in Windsor West, the riding I represent, I have an immigration office. The doors are shut. People cannot go there to get help on their immigration files.

Karen Boyce and Ian Bawden are in my office. Karen has been with me for 10 years and is finally going to retire at the end of December. I thank her for her commitment in all the cases she has strove through. In fact, many times on her own time she would actually get up in the middle of the night to call an embassy somewhere else to try to get paperwork or something processed. She would do that, literally, all the time. That is how dedicated she is. She has fought many times to have children pulled off planes, who were going to be deported to countries of which they never were actually part. They were born in Canada and their parents had been denied or their process for humanitarian grounds had not been accepted.

It is unfortunate, because when we look at an economy like ours in Windsor, it is critical that we have these processing issues taken care of rather quickly because we have so many people who cross the border into the United States.

I always use this example because I think it is important. We have a lot of doctors and other professionals who are not recognized in Canada and in Ontario who end up working over in Detroit, Michigan, and bringing that economic income stream back to our area. Ironically, sometimes when our hospitals are full here, or there is a specialty that we do not have, we send Canadian citizens over to those hospitals where they can be treated by the doctor who is not trusted over here in Canada. It is ironic that we pay a premium for it.

What is important is that we have many people who cannot get to their jobs until their actual immigration and processing have been completed. Often if we do not solve these cases they can lose those jobs. Those jobs are critical for our economy. The Canadian economy is not having the rebound we want, and I see it every single day on the streets of Windsor, so any extra employment that we can access in the United States is important. It has been a common thing that we have been doing for many years. It is one of the reasons we have a strong and healthy relationship. It is a symbiotic relationship between the Detroit greater region and Windsor Essex County. In fact it makes it a good economic strong hub. Part of that is the ability to traverse back and forth. Our immigration system is not contributing to success.

One of features of the bill that gives me some cause for concern is the concentration of power into the minister's office. At any time he can revoke or shorten the effective period of declaration for admissibility. That is one particular example.

The reason I am concerned is that I remember during the debate on Bill C-31, which was a refugee act that was changed, listening to the minister and the government members. The words they were using on Bill C-31 about the refugees in general were “protection”, “take advantage”, “security of population“, “abuse”, “crackdown” and “bogus”. With that type of tone, what are we going to have out of a minister's office that is going to have more capabilities and less control on oversight if that is the general theme and attitude about refugees?

I want to name a few refugees to Canada, because it is important to put a human face on our refugees. They are people like K'naan. He was born in Somalia. He spent his childhood in Mogadishu, lived there during the Somalia civil war and came to Canada in 1991. Is a person like that a threat? He is a refugee.

How about Adrienne Clarkson, our former Governor General of Canada? She emigrated from Hong Kong as a refugee in 1942. She came here, making her mark and contributing to Canada.

Fedor Bohatirchuk, a chess grandmaster who has since passed away, was persecuted in the Ukraine. He came to Canada and contributed for many years.

Sitting Bull, the Sioux chief, is an interesting one. He left America for Canada as a holy man who led his people as a tribal chief during the years of resistance in the United States. Sitting Bull eventually came to Canada from the United States and became a successful citizen.

In looking at some of these issues, I want to touch on one of the points that has been made with respect to criminal activity. Some of the comments that have been made by professionals are important.

Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer in Ottawa, spoke about how those who have been convicted of an offence, even a small or lesser offence, can now be deported outside of the country, which will put them further at risk or in trouble. I used to work at the Multicultural Council. I had a program called youth in action. I will talk a bit about that in a minute. However, I want to mention that when refugees or youth commit crimes it is sometimes a cry for help; sometimes it can be due to mental health; sometimes it is just a really bad mistake; sometimes they do not have medication and it could be due to psychological issues that are taking place. When they get into programs that assist those people, they actually become better citizens and better people who are more engaged and contribute to society on a regular basis.

The issue of mental health in the general Canadian public is swept aside, let alone when it involves those who are involved in a criminal activity. It is important for judges to have more flexibility to be able to determine the case. Before I get into the work we used to do, I want to say that our judicial system has made some terrible mistakes. It is not perfect. Mistakes can be made when decisions are being made with respect to people. Maybe information is not presented properly, did not get there or was inadmissible. As we know, those who have money will get the best lawyer they can because they want the best representation. How many refugees in Canada are walking around with a pile of cash and can hire the best lawyer? I have often seen this issue come through my office. It is horrible that people have spent money on lawyers by borrowing it from other people or using credit cards and other types of things, which they find very difficult to repay because they do not have that economic stream going at the moment, and that puts them in an even worse situation. That is the harsh reality of our judicial system.

I want to talk a bit about the Multicultural Council program that I ran. We had 16 to 18 youth at risk between the ages of 18 to 30. I know they are called youth, but it went all the way up to age 30. However, they were usually in the 20-year range. We had eight Canadians who had been in Canada basically all of their lives, who had made mistakes that created a problem by way of a minor fine, a penalty or a criminal record. Then there were eight new people who had just immigrated to Canada. We mixed them together to create a program called multicultural youth in action wherein they did community work, learned all kinds of life skills and conducted interviews. We had an over 90% success rate at getting them back into school and/or employment. When we think about it, that program ran for several years and was very successful.

I will conclude with this. What we were able to do with some of those youth, and I say some because we could not get them all, was save taxpayers money because they were not going back into the judicial system or going into the penal system, where they would actually learn more behaviours and take a longer time to be rehabilitated, as opposed to paying the price for what they had done and learning to contribute as a citizen.