Bill C-43 (Historical)

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to limit the review mechanisms for certain foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible on such grounds as serious criminality. It also amends the Act to provide for the denial of temporary resident status to foreign nationals based on public policy considerations and provides for the entry into Canada of certain foreign nationals, including family members, who would otherwise be inadmissible. Finally, this enactment provides for the mandatory imposition of minimum conditions on permanent residents or foreign nationals who are the subject of a report on inadmissibility on grounds of security that is referred to the Immigration Division or a removal order for inadmissibility on grounds of security or who, on grounds of security, are named in a certificate that is referred to the Federal Court.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a little time to talk about Bill C-43.

As the House and this country are aware, there are two fundamental propositions that we are working through and objectives that we would complete over the next period of time with respect to immigration.

First, from an immigration perspective, there is the aspect of ensuring that our backlogs are reduced to such an extent that they no longer pose an issue or problem with respect to driving Canada's economy. We stated very clearly in the budget bill of this spring and early summer that one of the economic drivers for this country over the next decade was going to be a focus on immigration and ensuring that we will bring into the country those with the skill sets necessary to work in this country where those jobs cannot be filled by Canadians. This would enable this country to move quickly, from an economic perspective, to ensure that when companies across this country are moving forward and cannot find those to do the work, we are able to access those skill sets in a very quick and expedited fashion

We know that the previous government cared little about these factors with respect to the economy. We have made it clear that our number one objective is to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong and use immigration to drive the vehicle of the economy.

The second piece on immigration is to ensure security so that our system is not taken advantage of and can be trusted. Most importantly, we would have an immigration system that protects Canadians. It would ensure that victimization through immigration fraud or criminal activity would be halted immediately. Those individuals who are not Canadian citizens would face deportation from this country, based on illegal acts that they have committed.

Our Conservative government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. In fact, our platform of 2011 promised to expedite the deportation of foreign criminals. Our government has followed up on that promise by introducing Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

We are a generous and welcoming people. We also have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters who abuse Canada's generosity. This proposed legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals to delay their removal during which they can continue to commit crimes and victimize Canadians. Our message to foreign criminals is very clear. They are not welcome in our country.

The faster removal of foreign criminals act focuses on three areas. One, it would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. Two, it would make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. Three, it would remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada to enjoy our hospitality and the beauty of this country.

I would like to expand on the first area in terms of making it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country.

We would lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months.

We have all witnessed on a regular basis serious crimes that receive a minimum penalty, whether by judge or jury, of a minimum of two years. However, we have noticed across the country that courts are often using two years less a day to penalize individuals for their crime. At the same time it obviously changes the aspect of that criminal conviction, because it is less than two years, and therefore the scope of the current legislation does not allow us to pursue those individuals for the purpose of getting them out of the country and deporting them. Therefore, we would lower that threshold of two years down to six months for acts of serious criminality.

We also will bar those who are convicted of an offence or committed an act outside Canada, which, if committed in Canada, would carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years. If individuals commit a crime in another country and its equivalent is a maximum penalty of 10 years if committed here in Canada, we will ensure they are not welcome here and will not participate in Canada's democracy because they have not earned the right to do so based on the crime for which they have been convicted.

We will restrict access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration for foreign nationals who are inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international human rights violations, or organized criminality. We also will clarify that the Minister of Public Safety may only take public safety and national security considerations into account when examining an application for ministerial relief. We will get specific in terms of what a minister, whether of public safety or citizenship and immigration, can do in terms of making a decision on his or her own.

We will deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals who have a non-accompanying family member who is inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality. When an organized criminal gets caught in his or her country, is charged, is convicted and we see family members of that individual fleeing because they know they are next or that they face potential criminal investigation themselves, no longer will they have the ability to come into this country.

If a terrorist regime in another country has been brought down, as we have seen over the past year, and the leaders of that terrorist regime or their families attempt to come here to Canada, they will no longer have the right to do so based on their attachment to the criminality and to the rights violations committed in their country of origin.

We will increase the consequence for misrepresentation from a two-year inadmissibility to a five-year inadmissibility and, in addition, ban such individuals from applying for permanent resident status within those five years. If there is one thing I have noticed in my close to four years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is that time and time again we have bogus applications coming from other countries simply because some individuals lie on their application, misrepresent their situation, misrepresent their family or misrepresent the reason upon which they are applying for permanent resident status in Canada, whether that be through the normal procedures available or whether it be by refugee status. Therefore, if bogus refugees who want to come to this country misrepresent themselves or basically lie on their application, they will face a five-year inadmissibility penalty instead of a two-year penalty. It also would allow the ministry to ensure that these individuals who have misrepresented themselves cannot apply for permanent residency here in Canada for up to five years during that ban.

We are ensuring that we will make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country.

On the second point, we will make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place.

As I mentioned, we will ensure that our system is modernized and that it meets the standard upon which we should have those coming to this country be allowed to enter into Canada. We will ensure that eligible individuals could file an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division only if sentenced to less than six months imprisonment in Canada. For example, permanent residents sentenced to 11 months in jail for sexual assault would no longer be eligible to appeal a removal order. They would be removed.

A new bar would be added so that those with a foreign conviction or who committed an act outside of Canada carrying a maximum sentence of at least 10 years in Canada could no longer access the Immigration Appeal Division as well. Clearly this would be an expedited process. If individuals have been convicted of a serious crime in this country or a comparable crime in their country of origin, they will not have the appeal, after appeal mechanism that so many of these criminals have had in the past. That will not exist any more. They will have the right to an appeal but it will be one appeal, it will be quick, fair and, upon the decision of that appeal, it will obviously carry the consequences which will be carried out once that decision is made.

Foreign nationals inadmissible on the most serious grounds of security, human international rights violations or organized criminality will no longer be able to apply under the humanitarian and compassionate provisions. A war criminal would be ineligible to request humanitarian and compassionate considerations as a way to delay removal or remain in Canada permanently.

The legislation would also codify the court's decision. The Minister of Public Safety could only take national security and public safety factors into consideration and not factors such as humanitarian and compassionate when deciding to grant a request for relief from inadmissibility. It would have to be on the grounds of security, certain human international rights violations or organized criminality.

There would also be a new authority that would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deny temporary residence status for up to three years on the basis of public policy considerations. For example, the minister could use the authority in the case of a foreign national who promotes violence against a religious group. This will not happen very often but it does not exist in the legislation today which would give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism the authority to disallow someone to enter Canada based upon, for example, as I stated, that the person would be promoting violence against a religious group in his or her own country of origin or internationally.

Foreign nationals would be inadmissible to visit Canada if the foreign national has a family member accompanying them, or not accompanying them, who is inadmissible on the grounds of security, human international rights violations or organized criminality. For example, the spouse of a person who is inadmissible for war crimes would be inadmissible even when the spouse is travelling to Canada alone.

When we look at those two examples, we can see that the focus that we are taking as a government, that we committed to in the last election and are implementing under Bill C-43, would make it extremely difficult for those who do not meet the standards of immigration here in this country to gain access to the country, to gain permanent residence and, eventually, to gain Canadian citizenship.

However, we also believe it is important that we remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to this country. We would make it easier for those who are of no risk or those who are of low risk to get into Canada. For example, low-risk foreign nationals would be admissible for temporary entry into Canada when travelling with a family member who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, health, finance misrepresentation or non-compliance.

Therefore, a parent who is inadmissible on health grounds would remain inadmissible and require a temporary resident permit to visit Canada. However, the remaining family members would actually now be admissible. Under the current legislation, that is not the case. If an individual, for health reasons, is unable to be granted a temporary visa, his or her family is not granted a visa to come here. We will make that change.

Inadmissible persons seeking ministerial relief would need to submit a formal application. The minister's authority to grant relief on his or her own initiative without a formal application will be explicitly spelled out in the act. The minister could use this explicit authority to facilitate the entry of a head of state who would otherwise be found inadmissible if the minister were satisfied that the decision was not contrary to national interests. There are those from other countries currently who are in positions of government or leadership who, based on the current grounds of our law, would be inadmissible to come into Canada. This would allow the minister some flexibility, so to speak, to grant the individual the right to come here to Canada to do his or her work.

Foreign nationals or permanent residents are inadmissible on the grounds of security for any act of espionage against Canada, contrary to the interest of Canada. That part simply will not change.

As members can hear, the position the government has taken is to be tough, to be fair and to update an act that is in need of update. It does not take much for us to find examples from across the country over the past number of years of individuals who have been able to take advantage of our system or to, quite simply, beat our system as it currently is structured.

I will point to a couple of cases because they clearly illustrate the problem that we have and the corrective action that is necessary.

Jackie Tran, whose country of origin is Vietnam, committed the following crimes: assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. The sentences ranged in length from a $100 fine to two years less a day imprisonment. Did he appeal? Absolutely, he appealed. His removal order was completed in April 2004 but his removal actually took place in March 2010. For nearly six years, that individual took advantage of our system, used every appeal mechanism available to him and remained in this country. There are those who are in this process as we speak and who have again, while appealing to stay here in Canada, committed crimes.

Patrick De Florimonte from Guyana has been charged with multiple assaults with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, multiple counts of theft, of drug possession, of drug trafficking and of failure to comply with court orders. His removal order was in October 2007. I stand here today and tell the House that that individual has not yet been removed from the country due to four and a half years of delay and running from his responsibilities. He is potentially committing crimes yet again in the country.

Gheorghe Capra has over 60 counts of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstructing a peace officer and failure to comply with court orders. His sentences ranged from two days to two years less a day. His removal order was September 2003. He was removed on January 2009 due to six years of appeal after appeal, not to mention the cost that we face in terms of moving through this process with these individuals.

Cesar Guzman was charged with the sexual assault of a senior citizen. He served 18 months in jail. His removal order was in May 2007. He was removed in April 2011 due to nearly four years of delay.

I could go on. There are example after example that are available to me and to anyone who wants to get a clear understanding of what has happened with this system over the past number of years and why it needs to change. It was by no accident that this policy, this platform, this legislation was included in the 2011 platform that we were elected on and the reason we are introducing it and carrying it through to second reading to get this bill to committee to be studied, then to have it come back to the House to be passed, then sent to the Senate for Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that we can put a stop to these types of examples that take advantage of our system, victimize people in our country and make a mockery of our system for those from other countries who believe that we can simply be taken advantage of. That will not occur anymore.

We have person after person who support this. Deputy chief, Warren Lemcke, of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports this bill and feels that it would help make Canadians and those who legitimately enter Canada safer.

The Canadian Police Association stated, ”This ensures that public safety is one of the considerations with respect to admissibility. To Canada, this is a clear step in the right direction”.

I have page after page of those who support this legislation.

I do not think this should take too long at committee. Rather, it should move through committee very quickly. It is clear that this is not an issue of partisanship. This is an issue of fairness and of treating those who want to take advantage of our system in the way that they should be treated. It is ensuring that it is fair to victims and to Canadians who would suffer as a result of these individuals being in Canada.

The opposition has already made comments. Both of our critics have made comments about the legislation. The government and I think that when a bill goes to committee it can always be improved. There is no question about it. However, they should be supporting the bill. If members want to make amendments that improve the bill, we will study them and look at them, but at the end of the day it is a bill that makes sense and it is one that has the overwhelming support of Canadians across the country. I look forward to it moving to committee.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all want to be tougher on non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, but we have some very serious concerns with aspects of this Conservative bill that would concentrate more arbitrary powers into the hands of the minister.

For example, the minister can keep out and declare people who are not in Canada yet inadmissible for up to 36 months as well as those who are already in Canada on grounds of public policy. This whole area seems just so wide, so open and not very clear.

Why is the government trivializing our judicial system and judicial processes by placing more arbitrary powers into the hands of the minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only people who are trivializing and mocking this system are those who take advantage of it. Those who misrepresent themselves when they come to this country take advantage of a Canadian system built on its principles of fairness. They commit crimes. These people are criminals. They make a mockery of our system. They make appeal after appeal after appeal. That is not going to happen any more. That is not the position we are taking.

The member talked about the issue of ministerial authority. Just last week this very member was appealing to the minister to move outside of a Immigration and Refugee Board decision to unilaterally make a decision about a person when we have a quasi-judicial process in place that she knows is fair, right and that works.

Now we come back this week and there is a different flavour of the week. Now there are criticisms about the minister being given too much authority. Last week the member wanted the minister to have more authority, and this week she wants him to have less. We will have to wait to see what happens next week.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I do have a fairly specific question.

There are hundreds of thousands of people around the globe who go to Canadian embassies and immigration services with the idea of coming and visiting their families here in Canada to participate in special celebrations, graduations and a whole wonderful litany of reasons why foreign nationals want to come to Canada.

Under this legislation, the government is proposing that if someone has a family member who is involved in a criminal organization, then that person does not have the right to come to Canada.

That tells me that in order to be able to establish that fact, the overseas immigration offices are going to have to do some sort of a background check on the people who want to come to Canada to find out whether or not their children or spouse does in fact have any sort of a criminal association, such as being a member of an organized gang. Canada has numerous gangs.

Is the member saying that immigration officers around the world will have to be more diligent in making sure that family members are not part of organized criminal gangs before they agree to grant a visa?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the intent of the legislation.

If we have a person who has been convicted of a serious crime in another country and would face a maximum penalty of 10 years if that crime were committed here in Canada, we are going to ensure that backgrounds of that person's family members will be checked. We are going to make sure that if we have a person who is part of terrorist organization in their country of origin and their family flees to come here, they will no longer be permitted to do so.

Canada is not a haven for criminals; we are a haven for those true refugees who seek a new life. We are a haven for foreign skilled workers who have the ability to improve the economy here in Canada, both for themselves and their new country. We are going to make sure that the enforcements laid out in this piece of legislation are in fact finally put to rest and implemented.

I appeal to the member who has indicated on a couple of occasions that he supports a number of things in this legislation. I am asking him and his party to get the bill to committee. Let us work through it at committee. Let us bring the witnesses in. Then let us come back here and have unanimous support for this piece of legislation.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my experience in my riding, a lot of the people who are most upset at the abuse of the immigration system are immigrants themselves. They have come here and have followed the rules and are a little upset that other people take advantage of the system.

I am interested in other countries' experiences. We are not the only country that has been open and welcoming and has been abused. I am curious as to whether we have leaned on the experience of any other like-minded countries, such as Australia.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member quite rightly points out that Australia is a country that has gone through some similar circumstances to what we have faced.

Our proposals, although tough and fair, compared to those of countries like New Zealand and Australia are very fair and moderate. However, those countries have already implemented their proposals. They are already on that course to ensure the safety of their citizens.

This bill merely takes the same actions they have taken. As we work through our immigration legislation, each and every part of the immigration system is going to be improved. Bill C-43 gets at that very important aspect of foreign criminals who want to gain access to Canada.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for outlining what the bill contains.

I have a quick question on the new subsection 22.1, the section allowing the minister to exclude someone from gaining a temporary residence permit for up to 36 months if, in the minister's own opinion, public policy considerations justify doing so. We have already heard of some concerns about the generality of this.

Is the government at all open to giving some substance to the notion of public policy? What are the guarantees that this could not be used for political reasons? You did say to us just now that this would not happen very often. I would be very interested to know what guarantees we would have, including whether judicial review is contemplated by the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fair question. When legislation is passed and discretion is given to the minister, questions certainly arise about how varying and how significant that scope of discretion is.

As an example, when we worked through the previous Bill C-31, one of the issues that we dealt with at committee addressed the same type of issue, in that case the discretionary power of the minister to determine a safe country of origin. Those applying for refugee status fall under a different category of application and appeal if they come and claim refugee status here based on their safe country of origin. We listed very specifically in the legislation exactly what the requirements would be for the minister to be able to designate a safe country.

I would suggest to my hon. friend from Toronto—Danforth that we would do the same with this piece of legislation. That is why, when we give discretionary powers to the ministers, it should be in the legislation and should not remain in the back of a regulation or deputation of some sort that is not laid out clearly in legislation.

The member will see that when the legislation comes forward.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-43, which the government purports will lead to the faster removal of non-citizens who commit serious offences.

I want to make it clear that as New Democrats we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens.

All Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent, crimes in our communities. Newcomers in our communities, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding and follow the rules, would be among the first to agree with this sentiment.

I made it clear when this legislation was first introduced that as a responsible opposition, we are ready to work with the government to ensure that criminals of all backgrounds are not allowed to abuse our appeal processes.

That being said, we have serious concerns about the bill being proposed here. We are concerned about both its effectiveness in dealing with the issue of non-citizen criminality, as well as its extraordinarily wide scope. Much like the Conservatives' crime legislation before it, we worry that Bill C-43 seeks to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, running the risk of both failing to deal with a problem and trampling on rights at the same time.

The minister has trotted out five sensational examples of non-citizens who have apparently abused the IRB appeals process to stay in Canada. On their face, these seem serious and, as the opposition, we are willing to examine them to ensure the public safety of all Canadians. However, there is a real risk, as I would hope the minister would agree, with making sweeping changes based solely on extraordinary cases. It may make good headlines and flashy press conferences, but it does not necessarily make for good public policy.

I must also point out that there are elements in the bill that seem to have merit and are worth further study. For example, Bill C-43 recognizes that entering Canada with the assistance of someone involved in organized criminal activity is not in itself adequate to determine inadmissibility. We think this makes good sense.

I have to say that I am a bit amazed that after an omnibus refugee reform bill and dozens of regulatory changes, the government did not make this change earlier. New Democrats have long called for better legislation to ensure that victims of trafficking are not caught up in rules intended to catch traffickers.

Additionally, we think it is reasonable to put people who are inadmissible on the grounds of security under conditions even when they are not detained. Again, we think these measures in Bill C-43 require much more study and scrutiny.

What are our main concerns with the substance of the legislation being proposed? First, we are concerned about yet another piece of government legislation that seeks to concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister. For example, Bill C-43 grants sweeping new powers to the minister to ban a foreign national from entering, leaving or being admissible, based on ambiguous public policy considerations. The last thing our immigration system needs is to be even more politicized than it already is.

The reality is that we have a good, independent system for determining admissibility and we do not need it to be replaced by the whim of the minister. The minister should not be able to keep out people who simply disagree with the government. In fact, it is ridiculous to believe that giving the immigration minister more power will solve anything at all.

On this side of the House, we believe that strengthening the independent judicial process is a better way to close a perceived loophole for criminals than concentrating yet more powers with the minister.

Our second major concern is the change in the definition of serious criminality under this legislation. Previously, serious criminality was defined as a crime subject to a sentence of two years or more. The bill before us seeks to change that to a sentence of six months or more. On face value, this may seem reasonable. After all, the 2010 and 2011 statistics on sentencing show that the most common offences to be encapsulated by the new definition would be sexual assault and robbery.

The minister will get no argument from me or my NDP colleagues that these violent crimes represent serious criminality. However, here is the rub. New sentences brought in by the Conservatives' crime legislation make a whole host of non-violent crimes subject to mandatory minimums that could drastically effect how we look at this legislation. As New Democrats, we strongly support greater study on this aspect of the bill so that Canadians can fully understand the impact of this change in definition.

The third concern is that Bill C-43 would not only apply to those convicted of serious crimes in Canada, but also abroad. While Canada is not perfect, it boasts one of the fairest judicial systems anywhere in the world. Other countries are not so lucky. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions around the world simply being a member of an opposition party can get someone convicted of a serious crime. These cases, more than any other, highlight the need for due process before the law. We must make sure that Canada remains a welcoming beacon of hope for those fleeing persecution abroad.

Professionals who work with immigrants and refugees, as well as the diaspora groups, have also raised concerns that this legislation could unfairly punish the young and mentally ill. Again, a robust study at the committee level must ensure we get answers to these perplexing questions. We must ensure that no consequences, unintended or otherwise, hurt the most vulnerable among us.

Another troubling feature for us in the bill is that the bill relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, taking into account the interests of children affected. In our view, ignoring the interests of children is not something the minister should be relieved of.

Perhaps the biggest concern the official opposition has with the legislation is that it is an attempt to turn the channel away from the other sweeping changes the minister is making to our immigration system. We worry that this is yet another attempt to vilify permanent residents in the minds of Canadians, focusing almost exclusive attention on a tiny minority to create the impression that newcomer communities are rife with cheats, queue-jumpers and criminals. This simply is not the case. The NDP stands with newcomers who want the government to focus on making the immigration system fairer and more accountable for the vast majority who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.

The reality is that the Conservative government's radical overhaul of Canada's immigration and refugee system is turning us into a less welcoming country. These changes limit the possibility of newcomers to reunite with their families and stifle attempts to build stronger communities. Canada was built by the hard work of newcomers from all over the world and this continues to be the case. New waves of immigration are helping build thriving communities and a 21st century workforce. Unfortunately, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants and addressing Canada's long-term needs, the Conservative government is prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages. This is not how we built our country and it will not be the way to build the economy of the future.

The Conservatives have increased the number of temporary foreign workers by almost 200% while allowing employers to pay them 15% less than a Canadian worker would earn. These workers come here alone. They are not allowed to bring their families. After sending money back home, they themselves are forced to go back home. This does not build communities. One would think that if someone were good enough to work in Canada they would be good enough to stay, but not under the Conservative government.

Last week in question period I highlighted a recent report that points to shocking negligence on the part of the federal government in protecting migrant workers. Too often they are subject to systemic abuse due to federal immigration laws and provincial labour standards. At the same time, the government has pressed the delete button on more than 280,000 potential new Canadians in the skilled worker backlog. These are folks who have followed the rules and whose skills Canada's economy desperately needs.

In the 2011 election, the member for Calgary Southeast cleverly courted ethnic and cultural communities by learning and reciting greetings in a myriad of languages. He showed up at many functions and promised a kinder and gentler immigration policy. However, after the Conservatives won their coveted parliamentary majority, the Conservative message has been the same no matter what language one speaks: newcomers have little value outside of being economic units for cheap temporary labour. This is wrong.

In addition to being my party's critic for immigration, I am also a spokesperson for multiculturalism. It is a responsibility I take very seriously. I am honoured to represent Newton—North Delta, one of the most diverse ridings in the country. In addition to hard-working people who have called Canada home for many generations, it is blessed to have newcomers from all over the world who make our communities stronger, immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Philippines, China, Asia and all over Europe, just to name a few. All of them tell me their number one priority is to reunite with their families and build strong communities. They came to Canada with the hope of a better future and under the promise that they could eventually bring their families.

Unfortunately, the government has systematically dismantled the family reunification provisions of Canada's immigration system, including making it harder for spouses to become permanent residents. It has also stopped applications for parents and grandparents, preventing them from being reunited with their children and grandchildren. Many grandparents now pass away before they can come to Canada and hold their grandchildren in their arms for the first time. This is more than political for me, it is very personal. I am saddened by the direction the government is taking us in. I was fortunate to come to this country, bring my family and contribute to my community, but I wonder if my story is even possible under the Conservative changes.

Another issue of great concern to the people in my riding and right across the country is the arbitrary rejection of visitor visas. The rejection rate is huge and many in my riding have had their families prevented from attending weddings and, yes, even funerals. Many are given no reason and have no chance to appeal these decisions. I only wish the government would spend half as much time making our visitor visa system fair as it does on bills like the one we are discussing today.

I also want to address this bill in the larger context of the sweeping and mean-spirited changes the government has introduced to our refugee system, in particular changes to the interim federal health program. Last spring, with much fanfare, the government announced that it would cut health coverage to vulnerable refugee claimants. Backbench MPs on the other side have even sent ten percenter mailings home declaring an end to gold-plated coverage for refugees, but the reality is far less pretty.

The move effectively denies access to health care to many legitimate refugees whose families have limited or no financial means. Canada was built on the idea that we all have a responsibility to take care of one another, especially the vulnerable, but the Conservative government is targeting this very basic Canadian value. Frankly, it is unconscionable to think that my colleagues across the floor would deny refugees the basic right of health care, but there we have it. They are playing politics with people's lives.

The cuts to health care in the bill we are debating today are not the only drastic changes the government is making to refugee policy. Last week we learned that Fatemeh Tosarvanda, an Iranian woman in Canada, is facing imminent deportation despite evidence proving she faces adultery charges in Iran that, under Sharia law, could result in her being stoned to death. Under the Conservatives' draconian refugee reform package, all refugee claimants are now banned from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment within a year of receiving a negative answer on their claim, but the assessment is a second chance to consider whether it is truly safe to send a rejected claimant like Fatemeh back.

While considering this legislation, I would urge all of my colleagues to look at the bigger picture. We all want to protect our communities from criminal activity. My riding has seen first-hand the terror inflicted by guns, gangs and violence. However, we need to take a balanced approach, one that deals seriously with criminals and also creates the opportunities and hope that stops crime before it starts.

This summer it was revealed that the Conservative government is cutting 20% of federal funding for youth justice programs in Canada. It is cutting over $35 million used to supervise and rehabilitate young offenders. What kind of a crime prevention strategy is that?

Furthermore, the government is failing to deliver on its promise to put more police on the streets in our vulnerable communities. In my province of B.C., 42 staff who supported the work of the RCMP have received notices stating that they could lose their jobs. Cutting people who help our front-line police officers is no way to prevent crime and make our communities safer.

We must ask ourselves why the government is not focusing on making our communities safe from criminals of all backgrounds rather than focusing so much attention on demonizing newcomers.

When it comes to the legislation before the House today, I strongly believe that we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal processes without trampling on their rights. I am willing to work with the government to ensure a balanced approach. My New Democrat colleagues and I stand firmly with newcomers, who think we should focus more time and legislative effort to make sure the immigration system is faster and fairer for those who do not commit crimes.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the vast majority of newcomers follow the rules and they deserve the House's attention. It is time for the government to treat immigrants as the nation builders that they are and offer them a fairer, easier way to be reunited with their loved ones. Unfortunately, too much time and too many press conferences are being dedicated to creating a false impression of Canada's diverse newcomer community.

Bill C-43 is another wide-ranging bill that covers a huge number of issues. We had hoped to see the end of bills made up to change the channel in favour of a better thought-out bill by the minister.

Since I have come to Parliament I have seen a myriad of changes. It seems almost on a weekly basis there are changes to regulations and there are new bills. What we need is a coherent, fair, equitable and transparent immigration policy that would help us to build on the strengths that newcomers bring to us, not this haphazard approach.

Let us carefully consider this legislation but let us also refocus our efforts on making Canada the welcoming, compassionate place that it once was and can be again.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to start. That was a 20 minute speech that went over a vast area of immigration but said virtually nothing about Bill C-43.

The member went on to explain the ideology of the NDP in a haphazard way in terms of the direction that party would like to take, and criticizing us no doubt. It is the opposition's responsibility to criticize but it is also the opposition's responsibility to come up with alternatives, to seek amendments, to try to strengthen a piece of legislation, not simply to sit on the other side and criticize with no fundamental understanding of what the true direction should really be.

With respect to Fatemeh, the Iranian individual who is applying for refugee status, the member knows full well that deportation has been put on hold based on the system that we have that treats every individual the same. When new information is gathered, there is the opportunity for that individual or her representation to further seek relief here in Canada. To suggest in any way, shape or form that the individual has been deported is incorrect.

When we are talking about minor offences, we are talking about assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, break and enter. I would really like the member to define what she sees as a minor offence of over six months that should remove someone from falling under this new legislation. The member did not mention it in her speech.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that we are fully prepared to work with the government to ensure a fair and judicious removal of non-citizens who commit serious crimes that endanger our communities.

One thing I will put back to him is that we are looking forward to going to the committee stage, coming to terms with and at least receiving clarity from the government as to what it means by “serious crimes”. We will be asking those questions. We will have amendments at that stage.

We are very concerned by the wide net this piece of legislation casts, and also the image that newcomers are rife with criminality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pose a question in the hope that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism might actually be listening to what is happening on his bill inside the chamber, given that it has just been introduced.

I will put this in the form of a question that I tried to get answered by the parliamentary secretary. I will use a specific example. Based on the legislation, in my interpretation of the legislation, if one is a father living in another country, has a child who immigrated to Canada four or five years ago, and now wants to visit that child, he can apply for a visiting visa. If he has another child who is still in his home country and who was involved in organized crime, he will not be given the opportunity to visit his child who immigrated to Canada. That is how I read the legislation.

I ask the hon. member if she believes my interpretation is correct.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we take a look at this bill, that is an area of great concern.

We have always believed that one should not punish other people for crimes committed by someone else. These are the kinds of questions we will be asking at the committee stage, trying to get clarity. These give us a great deal of concern. My colleague is rightfully worried about this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my concern really lies with the concentration of power in the hands of a minister, which is discretionary over the admission of temporary residents. I think back to that particular minister and his record in revoking the admission of George Galloway, which then went through the court in Ontario. The judge came back and castigated the minister for what he had done.

With this kind of power now residing in the hands of the minister, does it mean that, for public policy purposes, he could prevent politicians and journalists he did not like and people of that nature from entering this country?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill, this is one of the key areas of concern: so much arbitrary power rests with the minister to declare people inadmissible. Therein lies the rub. What it says is for “public policy” reasons. Public policy is a huge area. What kind of public policy? What aspect of public policy?

Once again, why would we put in the hands of a minister so much power, even over people who can visit, be a tourist in this country? That is what temporary visas are all about; they are given to tourists.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having served in the RCMP for over 18 years, I know the challenges the RCMP and any police force face in serving and protecting Canadians, especially in the streets, against the day-to-day activities of criminals.

I am going to ask a very simple question. I hope my colleague from across the floor can answer it. We have heard that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence are among many organizations that support Bill C-43.

I am going to ask the hon. member a very clear and simple question. Yes or no, does the hon. member and her party support the views of these organizations on this bill?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely support processes and a judicious way of removal and a very fair, open and transparent way of removing criminals from the country, but at the same time, we want to make sure there is due process and people do get to have their say

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the fact that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was not prepared to introduce the bill, given the fact that prior to coming into the chamber he was at a press conference, which both the NDP critic and I were able to observe, at least in part, and then also participate in, because the minister does not have a problem with appearing at press conferences and talking about this legislation. I guess it is because he wants to send that tough message that is very much anti-immigrant, I would argue. If we want to be fair to all political parties in the chamber, there is very little sympathy for violent repeat offenders who choose to continually break our law, and we too would like to see those individuals deported from our country.

Where we disagree is that we believe we need to treat the more than 1.5 million permanent residents in Canada with a great deal more respect. I was able to watch the minister. In the his backgrounder it says foreign criminals. When we use the word “foreign” we are really talking about permanent residents, but it gives that extra tough talk image by saying foreign criminals. The minister provided five examples in the backgrounder he attached to his press release and indicated the name of Jack Tran as number one. Reference is made to five individuals and they are the top five reasons why we have the bill before us. I would suggest there is a need for us to look at ways in which we can improve the system so we do not have individuals like Jack Tran and Patrick de Florimonte and the other three listed abusing our system.

I agree that we need to deport these individuals and the sooner the better. I emphasize that we have more than 1.5 million permanent residents in Canada, the vast majority of whom are wonderful outstanding citizens of our country. They might not have their actual citizenship today, and the government should take some blame for that because nowadays it takes two years to get citizenship when it should take no more than four to six months. That is an issue for another day, but it emphasizes where the minister has failed in terms of recognizing what is important and what should be the priorities in dealing with issues that immigrants have to face day in and day out.

The vast majority of that 1.5 million plus permanent residents have excellent behaviour and contribute to the well-being of our society both economically and socially. With that large number of people, it would be highly irresponsible for the government or anyone to believe there are not going to be some who fall on the other side of the law, who are going to be offensive. One could argue that many of those who fall on the other side of the law would be fairly reprehensible individuals who may be abusive, may be repeated violators of the law. We recognize that and we want to expedite and get those individuals away from Canada or look at the deportation issue.

That very minute percentage not only upsets me and the Liberal caucus and Canadians as a whole, but we have to deal with them and look at ways in which we can make changes to legislation so we can accommodate them. Let us not tarnish everyone because of that minute number of people.

We need to recognize what this legislation would do, in saying from two years to six months for an appeal. There are all sorts of crimes that it would now take into consideration. They include common assault, fraud under $5,000, theft under $5,000, possession of a stolen property under $5,000, trespassing at night, public mischief, flight from a peace officer. There is a litany of offences.

There is a responsibility, and we under-utilize the citizenship and immigration committee. There are things that the committee could be doing, and maybe we should be looking at and assessing the issue we are trying to deal with today in the form of legislation. It would have been nice for the committee to have dealt with that specifically in the last couple of years so we could provide better legislation that would not have labelled or generalized all permanent residents. Maybe there is a better way in which we could have achieved what the government was hoping to achieve, at least in part, by working together to produce a better piece of legislation.

Thinking it through, what does this legislation mean? A person could be a permanent resident in Canada for 10 months or for 10 years and commit an offence. Focusing attention on 10 years, maybe the person is married with two or three young children, possibly born in Canada. One night that person is at a function or event, maybe a celebration, and drinks too much, ending up in having an assault charge placed against him or her. Quite often assault charges will lead to some form of six-month sentence and that means the individual could be deported. Not the entire family, but just that individual could be deported. Members say, “yes, if he is convicted, yes”. He has been here for 10 or 12 years, has been an outstanding citizen, finds himself in a situation that many Canadians from coast to coast get into and makes an emotional decision. Yes, it is a bad decision but stuff of that nature does happen, I agree. However, with this particular legislation, we would deport.

What the member is recognizing by just his general acknowledgement of the fact is that this individual would be deported. The children who were born here in Canada would be able to stay and the spouse would be able to stay, but he would be deported.

We have to put some things into proper perspective here. I suggest there might have been more room for a number of the changes the government has been acting on, where we get more people involved, more stakeholders including members of opposition parties, in some of the policy discussions prior to bringing in the legislation. I believe there are circumstances when it might be in Canada's best interests that we respect that, out of the more than 1.5 million permanent residents, there could be some incidents that occur in which it is not in the best interests to deport the individual.

This is opposed to taking the extreme, which the minister is so effective at doing, and saying what a terrible individual Jackie Chan is. No one would question that. However, instead of taking the extreme, maybe we should be looking at the majority and recognize that it is out of 1.5 million permanent residents. Canadian society as a whole has a lot of crime committed and there are consequences. No one is denying that there needs to be a consequence to a crime.

The other thing the government wants to do through this proposed legislation is give more power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. It is almost as if he has been neglected over the last while. The Minister of Immigration just wants more and more power. We should remember that the Minister of Immigration is the minister who said that he did not need a world-class advisory body that has human rights professionals to help Canada determine what is or is not a safe country in the world. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism feels that he can do it and that Canadians do not need to worry about it. He is also the minister who said that he can identify an irregular arrival from any grouping of two or more people who come to Canada.

Trust me when I say that no one wants to be offside with that particular minister or one can be in a lot of trouble, especially with that kind of designating ability. Now the minister wants to have the responsibility to deny someone outright to come to Canada. I would suggest that there needs to more accountability and checks put in the place for the department of immigration. That is a very important aspect of the bill that needs to be looked at.

I raised the issue of visitor visas for a good reason. I share many of the comments that the New Democrat immigration critic put on the record in regard to a lot of frustration with the visitor visas. There is a great deal of frustration out there. I have brought forward petitions to the House regarding visitor visas and, for whatever reason, the government has been spinning its wheels in dealing with visitor visas.

This is exceptionally frustrating because there are individuals living abroad, parents and siblings, who want to visit family here in Canada for good reasons. Some want to see the environment in which their family members are living. Some may want to participate in wedding celebrations, graduations, family reunions and even funerals. I am always amazed by the sheer number of people I meet through my office and outside as critic for immigration who are trying to see a family member. Members would be surprised by the numbers. One can point to Chandigarh as an example of where I believe there is now about a 51% approval rating. Percentages aside, there are far too many families that are being denied the ability to come to Canada.

Why do I raise that on this particular bill? I posed a question to the parliamentary secretary and asked that the message get to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. I have asked the question in two briefings that I have had but I have not been provided an answer as of yet. The question is: What impact would this legislation have on immigration offices around the world in terms of being able to process in a timely fashion visitor visas?

I gave the example of a father to the New Democratic critic for citizenship and immigration and I provided a bit more detail to the parliamentary secretary. I anxiously await what will, hopefully, be a positive answer on that issue.

Unfortunately, however, it looks as though a lot more background work will need to be done. If that is the case, then the government had better be prepared to put in the additional resources so that things can continue to be done in a timely fashion in terms of the granting of visitor visas.

That is not to say that the Liberal Party is not concerned about the individuals who are visiting Canada. We also want to ensure that the individuals who are coming here are of good character, in good health and so forth. We are concerned about this legislation having a significant impact with very little end-of-day results.

The issue of misrepresentation is always a challenging one. I deal with a number of immigration cases. I enjoy doing immigration work. I have done it for many years, both in my capacity as a member of the Manitoba legislature and now as a member of Parliament. I enjoy helping people deal with immigration and the many problems involved in immigration. If there is anyone inside this chamber who believes that misrepresentation does not occur, they are wrong. Now that statement does not necessarily surprise members. However, I suspect that they are underestimating the amount of “misrepresentation” that has actually occurred where individuals have been successful.

Right away, one would say that we should batten down the hatches and get rid of that misrepresentation. However, people need to understand the many different forms of misrepresentation. I would argue that, in some cases, there is almost encouragement to misrepresent from surprising places. I am not just talking about immigration consultants or lawyers. It might even be somewhat surprising when there are implications that it might even involve levels of government that would ultimately lead to some mild form of misrepresentation taking place.

I had an individual who had two children but said that he had only one child when he came here. The reason in this particular case was that the man had a child with another woman and was not prepared to share that with his wife when they put in their application because it had occurred years prior.

I am not going to advocate whatsoever that individuals have the right to misrepresent themselves. There is an obligation, which we need to enforce to the best of our abilities, that people do not misrepresent themselves when they are putting in these applications.

However, I am interested in knowing why the government made the decision to go from two to five years. I have numerous examples that I could share at the committee stage as to why it is that maybe one might want to give some consideration as opposed to an outright ban. I suspect that we would find many Canadians, if not most Canadians, in certain situations, who would be surprised to hear some of the stories with regard to misrepresentation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, what I was hoping to hear from one of our critics was some positive amendments that would strengthen Bill C-43.

I just heard another speech about how much the opposition members have so many other issues that they think are a priority, and that this is not one they want to talk about while the bill is actually being debated in the House of Commons.

At the beginning of his statement, the member said that he had been ambushed by the bill, that this bill came upon him without any knowledge. The member then answered his own question by stating that he had had two full briefings on the bill. The member did acknowledge that he was never ambushed. He has had every opportunity to be briefed by department officials, myself or whoever. If he would like to hear more about the bill, he will get to do that at committee.

However, for the member to suggest that he was ambushed, perhaps he was busy and did not spend a whole lot of time working on the bill. I cannot speak for the member but I know he does a good job for his constituents.

I do want to know one thing from the member. The member is concerned about the jurisdiction the minister would have in terms of being able to say to an individual that he or she is not welcome in Canada and about the minister being granted the authority to do so. I have indicated that it will be stated clearly in the legislation how that will work.

In October 2011, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous motion demanding that the federal government deny entry into Canada of Abdur Green and Hamza Tzortzis due to their comments encouraging hate and violence against women and homosexuals. Currently, the minister has no jurisdiction to deny or fulfill that request from the assembly. Does the member believe that the minister should or should not have that kind of jurisdiction to be able to deny these types of individuals access to our country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member would have gotten the impression that I was surprised that the bill was being debated today. There was no surprise there whatsoever. If he wants to talk about the surprise, that happened back at the end of June in the winding days of the session. It might have been within the last week or the last few days of the session when the minister had a press conference saying that the government would deal with foreign criminals and then listed his top five foreign criminals. That came out of virtually nowhere.

We have had lots of time to look at the bill and, as the member pointed out, I even had the opportunity to have a couple of briefings on the bill itself.

I indicated that I was surprised that the minister himself, representing the government, did not speak first given the fact that we were just outside having a press conference. This speaks to the priorities of the House of Commons versus posturing. That is something that ultimately the minister himself will need to provide comment on and I am sure he will come up with some dandy excuses for us.

In regard to the ministerial power, I do not have the same level of confidence as the parliamentary secretary does with regard to the minister. I believe there needs to be a check put into place to ensure there is more accountability on this particular issue for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to be responsible to.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances that take into account the interests of children involved in potential deportations.

Could the member outline some problems with this approach?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to pick up on that particular point. There is no doubt that we will see permanent residents who have been living in Canada for maybe 10, 15, 20, 25 years. They should not be criticized. Sometimes there is a valid reason that they were not able to get their citizenship or why they have postponed getting their citizenship but they have families and they contribute to our economy and our social well-being.

However, for whatever reasons, those people sometimes fall on the other side of the law. It could be some sort of an emotional night that takes place at a club or something of that nature that ultimately leads to that person being convicted of something and sentenced to six months or more. In that situation, this legislation would deport the person but the young children and mom would stay here in Canada.

I suspect that the minister could even attempt to justify that, but it is important to know that, in his top five reasons that we have this bill before us, it takes the extreme cases. It does not deal with some of the other more common cases that come before us every so often.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague across the way twist himself out of shape trying to defend the indefensible.

I would like to raise a few points. The first is that being in Canada is a privilege. If a foreign criminal is guilty of a criminal act, the member is advocating that there should be no consequences, that the person should retain the privilege of being in Canada. That is absurd, both to me in the House and Canadians.

If a foreign criminal is responsible for a criminal act here in Canada, who is the victim? Canadians are. The member is advocating that a foreign criminal who commits a criminal act here in Canada and victimizes Canadians should retain the privilege of staying in Canada. How does the member defend that position?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to have a good, challenging debate on who is tougher on crime, I would welcome that debate with the member. I would even go to his riding if he wanted to have that debate before his constituents. When it comes to being tough on crime, I am prepared to get tough on crime. However, I am also prepared to get tough on preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.

Having said that, here is where we differ somewhat. A permanent resident who has been in Canada for 20 years and is at a celebration, maybe a 15th wedding anniversary, and drinks a bit too much and gets behind the wheel and gets ticketed for drinking and driving is guilty of a criminal offence, which makes him a criminal. According to the member, forget the six months: he is a criminal, deport the guy. That is the attitude of many of the Conservatives. It does not matter if it is the first time he has ever committed an offence, but because he has blown the 0.06 breathalyzer test level, the member is prepared to deport him. What kind of an--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2000 and 2003, when the Liberal government was in control of the immigration department, the Auditor General has said that the department has had no idea whether people are being deported or not. The department has been unable to track those who are supposed to be deported. The system between the Canada Border Service Agency and Immigration Canada has not been coordinated, the IT or computer systems do not talk to each other, and there has been very little training and therefore no tracking of who has been inadmissible and who has supposed to have left.

Through the years, it looks like the former government has been gone missing in dealing with people who are supposed to be deported and who are inadmissible. What plan does the member have to make the system better?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was well over a year ago that I challenged the government about why it is not tracking the people who leave Canada. This is something that other countries have been doing for a few years.

It is most unfortunate that the member tries to assign blame to the Jean Chrétien years. At the end of the day, situations and issues arise. I can assure the member that whether it was Jean Chrétien or any other member of the Liberal caucus, we take these issues very seriously and when these do come up we want to see solutions and would work with the stakeholders to try to fix the system.

We have been arguing for some sort of monitoring of exits for well over a year. I have been personally aware of this need for well over a year, having been talking about it since that time and well before the legislation came forward.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to speak at the beginning of the debate because I had a meeting with the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, a meeting that could only take place an hour ago. Therefore, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit me, as the minister moving the bill, to speak at this point.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. As members will know, I make a point of attending all debates on bills for which I am responsible. I take the importance of ministerial presence in these debates very seriously and so I appreciate the indulgence of the House in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is an important measure to strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. We call it the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. We all know that Canada welcomes newcomers from around the world. Since coming to power, this government has accepted more immigrants than any other government in Canadian history: over a quarter of a million per year, or 14% more than the previous Liberal government. We have also maintained the highest per capita immigration rate in the developed world. This means that we add approximately 0.8% of our population through immigration every year. We have also increased the number of resettled refugees by 20%. We will be inviting more than 14,000 additional convention refugees to settle in Canada, which will give us the highest refugee resettlement rate in the world.

Our government has also tripled funding for settlement and integration services for new immigrants. We have done so much to help immigrants integrate and succeed.

When I work closely with new immigrants to Canada, I listen to them when they say that they want an immigration system that is fair and in keeping with our laws. That means that they want an immigration system that is based on the rule of law. They do not want anyone who poses a threat to the safety of our communities to come to Canada or to remain here. They want a system that welcomes newcomers from all over the world who want to come here, obey our laws, build Canada, contribute by paying taxes and respect Canada. New Canadians have no patience for those who come here to abuse the generosity of Canada and Canadians.

That is what I hear from new Canadians all around the country, that they and all Canadians, whether born here or newly arrived, treasure our country's historic posture of openness to the hard work and talents of newcomers, including refugees from persecution. At the same time, Canadians, especially those who came to this country from abroad, have no patience with those who would violate our laws or abuse our country's generosity. That is why we brought forward Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which seeks to make several amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are designed, on the one hand, to facilitate and make easier the entry into Canada of legitimate visitors and immigrants and, on the other hand, to give us stronger legal tools to bar from Canada those who may pose a risk to this country and to remove from Canada those who have committed serious crimes and been convicted of such by our fair judicial system.

Allow me to review the provisions of the act. First, with respect to facilitating the admission of bona fide visitors and immigrants, the bill seeks to narrow the breadth of the inadmissibility provision for espionage to focus on activities carried out against Canada or that are contrary to the interests of Canada.

Quite frankly, this has the effect of covering those who may have been involved in espionage for close democratic allies of Canada and who may in fact have been gathering intelligence on behalf of Canada against common security threats. We believe that the wording in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is unnecessarily broad and that we ought to focus the inadmissibility provision with respect to espionage on those who have been engaged in spying contrary to the interests of Canada.

Second, the bill would permit the temporary entry of persons with an inadmissible family member, except where the family member is inadmissible for security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality.

There could be a family, for example, that has applied to visit Canada but has one medically inadmissible family member, that is to say, someone who according to officials and a medical exam might pose an excessive burden on Canada's taxpayer-funded public health system. In that case, under the current law, the entire family, all members, would be rendered inadmissible because they are considered as a package, as it were. This amendment would allow us to sever the one inadmissible person from that group, so that the other family members could still be admissible to Canada. This is a measure that has been broadly supported by immigration practitioners and others who see the unnecessary breadth of the currently law.

Third, the bill provides express authority for the Minister of Public Safety to grant ministerial relief on the minister's own initiative. This is to say that if our legal system, let us say the Canada Border Services Agency, which is delegated by me under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, finds that someone is inadmissible, there is a lengthy, time-consuming process to seek relief from the minister. This clarifies that the minister could take that initiative, and it streamlines the relief process for legitimate and bona fide visitors or immigrants.

I will now talk about measures in the bill that will strengthen the integrity of the system and protect the safety of Canadians.

First, the bill will create a new authority for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. The minister will be able to deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals for up to three years based on public policy considerations.

This would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, on public policy grounds, to deny admission to Canada for up to three years to a foreign national who otherwise may be admissible. This is a very delicate part. It is a very delicate proposal that we are making, and I really to hope that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will focus on this particular proposal to help guide me, frankly, and the government as to how we can construct criteria, either by ministerial order or published regulations or perhaps even an amendment to the bill itself that would help us address, let me call them, really exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

Under the current law, a foreign national is typically inadmissible only if he or she has a criminal record in a foreign country for crimes that would also be considered serious in Canada. That excludes political prisoners, because so-called political crimes with trumped up charges are not a crime in Canada. Or, if they are or have been a member of a criminal organization or a banned terrorist group or, as I mentioned before, have been involved in espionage or may pose a serious security risk to Canada, he or she is inadmissible, or if they are medically inadmissible, and some other categories.

Here is the problem. From time to time we get people seeking admission to Canada who may not have a criminal record abroad, but who may actually be coming here to incite hatred and violence, or to incite terrorism.

I will give the example of two British nationals, I believe, named Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis. Last year, they came to Canada even though they had a horrible record of promoting hatred against women, homosexuals, gays and lesbians, Jews and certain other minorities. A number of Canadians were afraid that the men intended to come to Canada to incite hatred, violence and perhaps even terrorism. Under current laws such persons cannot be prevented from entering Canada. For example, in some countries, it is not a crime to promote hatred against Jews or homosexuals.

This bill would give the minister the discretion, with certain limits, to prevent certain foreign nationals from entering Canada if they plan to promote violence, even though it is not a crime in their country of origin.

This is something we will have to study in more detail when the bill is before the standing committee.

Second, the bill seeks to lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months and also bar those who are convicted of an offence or have committed an act outside Canada, which if committed in Canada would carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years. Perhaps this is my colleague's most important element of the bill.

Let me explain. The perpetually angry member for Winnipeg North and sadly misinformed Liberal critic for immigration was outraged with the suggestion that we should deport foreigners in Canada who had been convicted by Canadian courts of a serious crime, punished and given a sentence of six months or more.

Apparently and regrettably, the Liberal critic is not aware of even the basics of the current immigration law. The Immigration Refugee Protection Act, adopted in 2002, when his party was in government, says that if a foreign national is convicted of a crime with a sentence of six months or more, he or she is subject to deportation. That is what the current law states.

Here is the problem. Because the Liberals were more concerned about the procedural rights of criminals than public safety, they allowed for a loophole, which was that people who were convicted of a crime of six months or more as foreign nationals would be subject to deportation. However, if the sentences were two years or less, so somewhere between six months and two years, they could appeal the deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division.

How does this work? I have a case wherein a foreign national, Cesar Guzman, raped a Canadian senior citizen. He was convicted of sexual assault. His sentence was 18 months in jail. He managed to delay his deportation for four years, meaning that this man who sexually assaulted a Canadian senior, this foreigner, was walking our streets posing a risk to other Canadians. Why? Because after his conviction, he would have gone to the Immigration Division of the Immigration Refugee Board that would have ordered his deportation pursuant to the current provisions in IRPA. Then he would have used the Liberal delay tactic. He would have appealed that deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division. I do not have his whole chronology here, but I am sure, because I have seen this hundreds of times, he would have lost at the Immigration Appeal Division and then appealed that to the Federal Court. If he was really aggressive, like some of these other characters who we have seen, he would have appealed that negative decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

If we add up each of those appeals, what does that mean in concrete, real world terms? It means violent foreign criminals, convicted by Canadian courts of law, are walking our streets when they should no longer be in Canada because they have lost the privilege of being here. That is the point the member does not seem to understand. To be a foreign national in Canada, whether as a visitor or as a permanent resident, is a privilege. It is not a hard one to keep. All we ask of the individual is two things: first, if that individual wants to maintain permanent residence, he or she has to live here for two out of five years; and, second, that the individual not commit a serious crime.

The vast majority of new Canadians will never commit a serious crime and they therefore have no tolerance for the small minority who do, who have lost the privilege to stay in Canada. I agree, because I am as committed, as any member of the House, to due process and natural justice in the rule of law. I agree that even serious convicted foreign criminals should get their day in court. I agree that they should benefit from due process. I agree that they should not be deported without consideration by the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, I do not agree that they should get endless years in court and be able to abuse our fair process. With this bill, we would put an end to that abuse.

We have cases like in my own hometown of Calgary. Calgarians, especially those in the Vietnamese community, were outraged.

The member for Winnipeg North is laughing—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was sitting in my chair listening to what the minister was saying. It was his colleague, another minister of his, who was actually laughing. It was not me.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is true, Mr. Speaker. The member is always so angry that he never laughs.

Jackie Tran was running a youth drug gang in Calgary that was terrorizing the Vietnamese. His gang was involved in multiple murders. He always avoided getting caught on murder, but he was caught and prosecuted and sentenced on several offences, like assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession, failure to comply with court orders. It took us six years to remove him from Canada because on every one of those charges, which under the law ought to have led to his deportation, he used endless and redundant appeals to delay his deportation for up to six years. Therefore, that guy, who was running gunmen around Calgary and whose gang was responsible for slaughtering people on our streets, was able to stay here for six years.

I will admit that there is probably one provision in the bill that Canadians would not support, and it pains me to admit that. I suspect the vast majority of Canadians would say that the bill is far too lenient. For Jackie Tran, the moment he is convicted there should not even have been a consideration of his deportation after he paid some time behind bars in Canada. Most Canadians would say that people like him should be sent packing immediately, but we at least will give them a hearing before the IRB.

What is the opposition's attitude? It wants to keep the loophole, permit the endless delays, let Jackie Tran stay here and terrorize our Vietnamese community for six years. On behalf of the law-abiding members of Calgary's Vietnamese community, the Liberals are wrong. We should deport criminals like this.

I mentioned Cesar Guzman. What about Mr. Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam? He was charged and convicted of assault with a weapon, drug possession, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders. He received an 18 month sentence. This is not a minor traffic accident. He delayed his deportation for seven years. Most terribly, what about the case of Clinton Gayle, a repeat violent foreign offender who delayed his deportation for years? Yes, there were operational screw ups on his removal, but had this legislation been in place he would have been removed before killing Toronto police Constable Todd Baylis.

We owe it to people like the family of Todd Baylis and all the other victims to pass this legislation, which is what the Canadian Police Association has called upon us to do. It is what the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has called upon us to do. It is what victims of violence have called upon us to do. I will listen to the victims of crime before the Liberals and the NDP when it comes to public safety.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister, gave a very impassioned ending to his speech today. The official opposition, the NDP, recognizes the need for an efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. However, it sticks in my throat when we call them “foreigners” because these are people whom we have admitted into the country and they are permanent residents. They have not gained their citizenship.

We absolutely agree that we need to address the loopholes. However, we believe the bill goes too far. There is one part of the bill that sticks in my throat. This new law would relieve the minister, and I find the word “relieves” interesting, of the obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations at the request of a permanent resident, whom the Conservatives call a “foreign national”. Is this the kind of Canada we want? Why would the government want to relieve the minister of considering the best interests of children in possible deportation cases?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, the bill proposes to eliminate access to the humanitarian and compassionate process, not for those facing deportation in general but for those facing deportation on the grounds of security, human or international rights violations or organized criminality.

This is a fundamental philosophical difference. The NDP members believe that convicted members of criminal gangs who are foreign citizens should be able to get special consideration to stay in Canada permanently on humanitarian grounds. They also believe that people who according to the IRB have been found complicit in war crimes in their country of origin should be able to abuse our process by making an application for permanent residency on compassionate grounds.

I believe Canadians are hard-headed but soft-hearted. We are compassionate, but we are hard-headed when it comes to foreign criminals and soft-hearted when it comes to legitimate cases of humanitarian and compassionate consideration. I do not believe that a foreign gang member, or a terrorist or someone who has been found complicit in war crimes should get access to our humanitarian and compassionate process. It is an abuse of process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the top five reasons for faster removal for the justification of this legislation. He always makes reference to Jack Tran. He takes that extreme element. I suggest there was no one inside the House of Commons who justified or wanted to see Jack Tran or these five individuals who he included in his press release stick around in Canada. One could be critical of it taking so many years to deal with the issue. The problem is the extreme attitude the minister fosters, and we saw it today in the backbenches of the Conservatives.

It is really all about the permanent resident. If a permanent resident who has been in Canada for 15 years goes to an event and drinks beyond 0.05%, maybe it is 0.06%, and he is criminally found to be drinking and driving, should that individual be deported according to the Conservatives? In the minds of Conservatives he should because he is a criminal because he has a criminal conviction. What is the opinion of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration on that?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is clear that the member does not understand the current law and does not understand the bill. The current law says that according to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and this is not selective but just cold and hard facts, that a foreign national, in common parlance a foreigner, who is convicted in a Canadian court of a crime with a sentence of six months or more is a serious criminal and that following such a conviction, he or she is subject to removal from Canada. The only question is whether he or she gets years of appeals on that deportation.

We are very careful in focusing on maintaining the six-month bar that already exists in IRPA. If someone goes to a bar and has a bad night and gets into a fight, that person would not be affected by this. People who are convicted of shoplifting are not going to be deported. Those who have a minor fraud count of cheque cutting or a minor traffic offence are not going to get a penal sentence of six months or more. These are for people involved in things like drug trafficking, sexual assault, possession of a dangerous weapon, multiple assaults. These are the cases we are talking about. These are serious crimes according to the law and according to our courts, and they should have serious consequences.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested that serious crimes should create the burden for the government to evict an individual, to kick that person out.

There are a number of people in this country who would rather that Lord Black of Crossharbour were not here. Would this change in the law affect his status in any way?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and this bill deal with those foreign nationals who have committed crimes in Canada. If the hon. member has evidence of anyone who has committed a crime in Canada for which they have been sentenced to a period of six months or more, he ought to bring that forward to the relevant police authorities.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to all these arguments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North was very concerned about someone who might have a drinking and driving problem.

It is my interpretation of what was said this morning that we are talking about people who have very serious infractions, people who do serious harm against Canadians, against people in our country.

Will the minister please explain this, which cannot be understood by members opposite, to relieve their minds that the ordinary citizen will not be deported quickly?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the contention from the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I am not aware of anyone in Canada who has ever been sentenced to a six-month prison sentence for a charge of driving under the influence. Perhaps if it is their 10th or 15th DUI conviction, perhaps if they ran into someone and their driving under the influence resulted in manslaughter, they would be affected by this provision.

If the hon. member can come up with a single case of anyone who has received a six-month custodial sentence for a simple charge of driving while under the influence, I challenge him to bring that forward.

The hon. member is trying to distract us from the fact that this deals with what the law calls serious crimes like assault, sexual assault, drug trafficking and these sorts of offences. This includes, quite frankly, as in the case of Clinton Gayle, someone who had multiple firearms offences and was allowed to stay in Canada by using these delay tactics that we are now removing, and who went on to kill a Toronto police constable.

I do not think we have any obligation to allow a permanent resident like that to stay in Canada once he has already benefited from due process.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-43, yet another immigration bill. With 1.4 million Canadians out of work, 300,000 more Canadians today than in 2008 when there was an economic recession, one would think the House and the Conservative government would actually focus more on job creation instead of putting all their energy into dealing with perceived problems through legislative means.

Since 2000, the auditors general have been saying that the problem with who comes into the country and who gets deported is not really with the law, but with the administration of the law. A succession of auditor general reports, in 2000, 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2011, all five reports said the same thing. Between Canada's immigration service and the Canadian Border Service Agency, there are serious problems in how the law is administered as to who gets into the country and who gets deported.

The 2007 auditor general report talked about it not being clear which department did what. It said that it was not consistent as to who was deported and who came in and the level of compliance was not monitored. There was no regard as to how much it cost to remove people from the country. More damning was it could not track those who needed to be deported. For a good percentage of them, it was unknown where they had gone. In dealing with detentions and removals, the report stated that the policies and procedures were not applied consistently and that the database that dealt with detentions and removals was a complete mess, unfortunately.

That was in 2008, four years ago. Surely, things would have improved. Surely, we would know who we were letting in, whether they were criminals or not, and who was being deported. Actually, no, things have not improved.

The Auditor General did another report in 2011. Many hours and months were spent tracking what was happening with Canada Border Services Agency, which has the task of dealing with people, and Canadian immigration services overseas, as to who was admissible to Canada and who needed to be deported. It noted in chapter 2 of the report that the operation manuals had not been updated and there were actually three different screening manuals. However, with the hundreds of bulletins and manuals, if the officers wanted to check, they did not have the search capacity to do so. Therefore, they were trying to find out which manuals to apply and which bulletins they should use. They would go on a search and their computer system would not allow them to search. It was not clear. There are many and they are not necessarily updated either.

It is interesting that there is a lack of country specific risk profiles. The profiles are not systematically produced and, even if they are produced, they are not distributed. According to chapter 2.29 of the Auditor General's report, the overseas officers often have no idea what kind of person should not be coming into our country. In fact, half of the officers said that they did not have specific and sufficient information to assess if people were inadmissible. They do not know whether they have security concerns because the manual is not updated, the risk profile is not clear, it is not systematically produced and it is not distributed.

As I said earlier, there were audits in 2000, 2003 and 2008. The Auditor General went back to see whether there was a framework to ensure the quality of the jobs done, both here in Canada and overseas, and whether there was a performance review. Apparently, there is no performance review, no guidance, no training and not enough information to properly determine who should or should not come into this country. That is from the Auditor General's 2011 report, chapter 2.37.

In chapter 2.39 of the report it states that the department's 2011 program integrity framework calls for the monitoring of the quality of decision making through random, systematic and targeted quality assurance activities. That means that they check to see whether the law is being applied properly. This so-called program integrity framework has not been implemented and, therefore, is not done, which means that we do not know whether the existing law, the previous law or the future law is being applied.

We are seeing that the Conservatives keep trying to change the channel. It is the department that is broken and the system is not working, according to the Auditor General. Instead of cleaning the system and doing it better administratively, the Conservatives are wasting time. They keep trying to change the law every three months and taking the time to change the channel. For Canadians who know that something is not right, the Conservatives would say that it is not the system that is the problem but that it is the law, which is not true. According to the Auditor General, it is the system that is broken.

I have more. The Conservatives said that there are all types of problems because there is no timely review of the effectiveness of the security screening process. Whether it is CSIS, CBSA or Canada Immigration Service, we need to have all of them connected. The Auditor General said that the IT systems are not inter-operable, meaning that they are not necessarily connected. The field agents, the people out there working to decide who gets to come in and who needs to be deported, cannot get all the information they need. That is another problem.

The Auditor General went on and identified other serious problems. It is not just the system. The report also mentions that there is an absence of a formal training program or curriculum. The workers are not formally trained. It says that close to 40% of the analysts had not received training. They do not know how to apply the law because they have not received training. It is not their fault. As well, 74% were missing training in research techniques. That is the majority. Three out of four front-line officers were missing training in research techniques, so they do not know how to do it.

To make it worse, even though there is no formal training program or curriculum, if they have been there for a long time, maybe they would gain that information and knowledge from experience, but no. Forty per cent of the staff have employment records for two years or less, which means there is a high turnover in the front-line staff. There is little stability. With high turnover and very little training, it makes the situation much worse.

It is the system and the administration of the law that are the problems. Instead, rather than fixing the problem, we have yet another immigration bill, Bill C-43, to deal with the admissibility of temporary residents. We can change the law all we want but if there is the absence of a formal training program or curriculum, a high turnover, the manuals are not up to date, there is very little risk assessment and the system is not being reviewed in a way that is comprehensive, there is a serious problem.

The Auditor General went on to say that when officers make decisions, they normally document the reasons for them. Actually, 28%, which is 3 out of 10, have documentation, which means that when 7 out of 10 officers make decisions, they do not document them. Did the person who made the decision follow procedure as to who gets deported and who gets admitted? We do not know. Did the person who made the decision conduct a full assessment? The public does not know because the person did not document what he or she did when the decision was made. Normally there would be mandatory checks but that was not done in 80% of the cases and the checklist was not used, which is a serious problem.

What did the Auditor General say needs to be done? He said that there needs to be a quality assurance process, good training and service standards. Are there service standards yet? No. CBSA and CIC have no service standards. How do we know whether the people coming into this country or being deported are the right people? We do not know.

The Auditor General asked how the problem got started. Apparently, in 2003, when CIC used to deal with enforcement, it separated that out and gave it to the Canada Border Services Agency, which established it and changed the act. Since then, it has not been clear as to who does what. It has done two memorandums of understanding and yet the information, management and share services were still under negotiation as of a few months ago. It is still trying to figure out who is supposed to do what. It was supposed to do a joint risk management strategy so that it would be clear as to how risk would be dealt with, those who are allowed to come into the country through temporary resident permits, except that its joint risk management strategy has not been implemented. It sounds good but it has not done it yet. Instead of ensuring that the director and the front-line staff do what they need to do, we have yet another legislative change.

According to the Auditor General, there is a huge problem. Chapter 2.96 states that CIC and CBSA do not have systematic mechanisms for quality assurance or measuring performance that would provide a reasonable level of assurance that their processes are working and that practices are appropriate for today's challenges.

Furthermore, the organizations have only recently begun to develop a joint risk management approach, as they have not done it yet, and similar issues have been identified in our audits since 2000. This is not a new problem. There needs to be a sustained effort by CIC and CBSA to address the gaps in the admissibility determination process so that the related risks are properly managed.

That was in 2011. What about this year, 2012? The assistant Auditor General, Wendy Loschiuk, and the principal responsible for the audit I was quoting from, Gordon Stock, came to the immigration committee. At that time, committee members asked whether all the recommendations in the Auditor General report had been implemented. Ms. Loschiuk said that even though some better techniques to track people had been adopted, the whereabouts of some of these people were still unknown.

In fact, it is not clear where 41,000 of these folks have gone and, of the people who were detained but released on bonds, it is not clear whether they have complied with the conditions of their release. There was little information available on the costs of detaining and removing persons or on whether policies and standards for detention were applied fairly. Now we would be giving the minister even more arbitrary power to apply these so-called policies and standards even though we do not know whether they are being applied fairly because there are no performance standards. This whole thing is absurd. They need to better coordinate their efforts.

The report is very damning. It says that there are lots of gaps in the system and very little helpful information available from security partners. It also says that security screening for a permanent residence visa can sometimes take more than three years, which is too long. It also says that the system to check whether it is working needs to be strengthened for the admissibility determination process.

In a system that is supposed to help protect Canadians, it is just as important to review the decisions to grant visas as it is to review the decisions to deny them. As the Auditor General said, rather than focusing on decisions on why visas are denied, we should focus on how visas are granted. However, that has not been done.

Is this a serious problem? Yes, the system is in serious need of change. However, I want to put it in perspective. Only 1% of applicants for temporary residence and 0.1% of applicants for permanent residence were found to be inadmissible. Of the 257,000 people who come to this country and become permanent residents, what are we talking about? We are talking about 46 people, which is not a huge concern in terms of changing the law. The real concern is how the law is being administered.

The Conservatives have fallen down on the job of ensuring the law is being applied properly and fairly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 contains some fairly significant changes. We would like to think that the government will be open to ideas or the possibility of amendments, especially in the area of the ministerial power, but also in other aspects of the legislation.

What are the member's thoughts about the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism being given the authority to tell someone that he or she cannot come to Canada without having any checks in place? Does she feel that this would be an amendment that she would be supportive of in terms of ensuring there is a check in place to limit the minister's ability to deny someone access to Canada?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General, the law is being applied in an arbitrary fashion right now, so there are already serious problems. To give the minister the power to declare a person inadmissible for up to 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations means that decisions will be made in a closed-door, opaque and non-transparent manner.

What are public policy considerations? Is it in some kind of menu? Are there criteria? Are there any specific guidelines? Is it open for debate? Is it open for discussion? We do not know.

There is a pattern to how the Conservative government operates. Closed-door decision-making without the consultation of both Parliament and the public seems to be the pattern. In my mind the power is completely centralized in just the minister's hands, especially when the department, according to the Auditor General, has no performance review and makes decisions in an arbitrary manner.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her description of a situation that seems to be ongoing, which is the lack of adequate resources that would enable the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to do its job.

I would like to know what her concerns are following the budget announcement and the cuts that continue to be made to the public service.

What does she foresee in terms of service delivery by the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the cutbacks are with respect to both the Canada Border Services Agency and Canadian immigration centres. It means that there will be even higher staff turnover, there will be even less training, and decisions will be made in an even more arbitrary manner because there is no performance review. In many ways, people who are waiting to get served will wait longer.

For border services, it means that more illegal guns will be smuggled into the country, that people who should be inadmissible may end up being in Canada and that those who should be allowed to come to Canada will not be able to come. It may be that CBSA cannot track down those who should be deported, and those who should not be deported for humanitarian reasons, because they grew up in Canada all their lives and their entire families are here, or who can reform themselves and become good citizens, may end up being treated unfairly and be deported. That would be unfortunate.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation and for very clearly showing not only how the current laws are not being implemented but that the staff who are charged with carrying out these checks and balances do not have the resources and do not have any systems in place. Therefore, it seems rather strange that we are going down this road right now.

My question to my colleague is this. When she meets with different community members from our diverse population, what kind of feedback is she getting on this mean-spirited approach that the Conservative government is taking to transform our immigration policies and paint a picture of newcomers as criminals and cheaters who are just here to use the system?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are actually dealing with 0.1% of permanent residents, so it is a very small number. With all this attention through press conferences and media stunts, I am afraid that the general public will have the opinion that a lot of immigrants are hard core criminals, which is not the case.

I hear very often that the law is not being applied fairly. There are people who would point out that such a person should not be in Canada. Why is that person still here? There are other cases where people have asked, how come my uncle cannot come to Canada? Why is he inadmissible?

I have heard from my constituents of cases where there are people who have assisted in supporting opposition movements or pro-democracy movements in a country that is governed by a dictator. They are freedom fighters and yet because the government declared them criminals, even though they are not, they are then not allowed to come into the country, even though those are the kinds of people the Conservative government is celebrating. They cannot get their permanent resident status because they are “inadmissible”, even though the work they are doing is in fact being encouraged by the Conservative government.

I have heard of all types of unfairness because of the way the law is being implemented at this moment, and in the last 15 years, actually.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina for her eloquent comments.

My question, though, is about the current situation of immigration in Canada in general. I have noticed, as have my staff, that there has been a clampdown on visa applications for family members and that the length of time it takes for family reunification to take place has been extended to the point where, in some cases, it takes 14 years to bring family members together. In some cases these family members are deceased before they get here.

Could the hon. member comment further on the state of immigration generally in this country?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in one word, it is a mess.

The system is in a mess. The Auditors General may not use that word but if one reads all the reports that she and he have done in the last 10 years, and even in the last two years, the reports would reveal that the system is in a mess. Canadians are waiting longer and families are having a hard time getting their loved ones into Canada.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House that I am going to share my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord. We will each speak for 10 minutes.

I would like to start by saying that the title of the bill, quite obviously, is something that should give us pause. The reference to foreign criminals is something that seeps throughout the entire bill. It could, if we are not careful, help construct society's understanding of the contexts that are being discussed in the bill in a way that would separate those of us who are lucky to have full citizenship from those among us who are merely landed immigrants or permanent residents.

I would like to come back to that point when I discuss, a bit later, the cutting of appeal options in new categories of cases. However, I do want to put on record that one of the biggest problems is almost a discursive problem by the reference to foreign criminals in this undifferentiated way in the title.

The second big problem with the bill is that, in some ways, it combines two extremes in terms of the exercise of state power in this context.

One extreme is that it would give a full, at least in terms of the text, and unfettered discretion to the minister with the new section 22.1, which would allow him or her to refuse temporary residence visas on his or her own opinion of what are public policy considerations. There is nothing in the bill that talks about any constraints on that.

We had an answer earlier in the House when the parliamentary secretary suggested that the government might be open to giving a bit more substance to that, but at the moment it is not in the bill.

On the other hand, we have no discretion at all on other fronts in the bill in a way that adds to the repressive dimensions of its structure. Within section 64, which would change the threshold for no appeal rights after being determined to be inadmissible from two years to six months, removing the appeal as of right, there would be nothing in between. There would be no procedure for a leave to appeal. It would be all or nothing. If people have been convicted for an offence that has involved imprisonment of six months, then they have no right of appeal from the decision on admissibility to the Immigration Appeal Division.

On the other hand, in terms of no discretion, there is a new section 25 wording that would remove not just the right of the minister but the power of the minister to consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations in a category of cases.

Now, I want to be careful here when I add this in as a problem because those categories of cases are worded very broadly and they seem like the kind of cases when one would never want to exercise discretion to allow somebody to stay. “Security”, “organized criminality” and “violating human or international rights” are the words used.

However, even within those categories, they are so generally worded, “organized criminality” and “security”, that it is not difficult to imagine some circumstances in which there may be reason to lighten the severity of the law and allow somebody to stay. In fact, that is how the system has worked. On occasion the minister does exercise exactly that discretion for those reasons. The fact is that has been eliminated.

We have to look very carefully when this does hit the committee as to whether or not the use of extremes, nothing in between, has actually created a bill that would, down the road, show itself as producing a lot of hardship.

I am going to primarily address the question of the reduction of the elimination of the right to appeal to a broader category of persons and, also, the public policy discretion of the minister.

With respect to that public policy discretion, let me start here. The new section 22.1 says:

The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

He may do that or she may do that for up to 36 months.

That is it. That is all we have there.

It is not too difficult to imagine how, in the hands of a certain minister or in a certain period of time, this could be exercised very arbitrarily, if not abusively. There is nothing in the bill to constrain that, other than, I hope, the fact that there would be judicial review available, but judicial review is one of the worst possible ways to produce checks in any legal system because it requires time, money and good lawyers to actually get anywhere. We need to have a system of decision making within the bill itself that checks the minister in his or her decision making, and public policy consideration is just simply far too broad a mandate to give any one person to exercise in the context.

I will not go into specific examples, but we do know of at least a few examples where the Minister of Immigration has clearly not wanted somebody to enter the country for reasons that, under the surface, appear to be more about politics than they do about sound public policy. That clause has to be looked at in committee. It has to be beefed up if it is to be retained.

The next provision to look at is section 64 which, as everybody has noted, lowers the threshold for removing the right of appeal on an inadmissibility decision from two years imprisonment to six months. If a person has been in prison for six months, that is it in terms of them having any right of appeal. They would not have any.

We should think about some of the things in the Criminal Code that can attract six months, and they may not that often, such as stealing oysters, section 323, selling a betting pool, section 202, and the list goes on. There are lots of offences that can attract six months. We would like to think the system would never end up seeking to deport somebody for these kinds of offences, but the moment we go down from two years to six months, we actually enter that territory where these kinds of Kafkaesque possibilities are there.

What about more recently, the effects of mandatory minimum legislation in Bill C-10? We know now that with marijuana, for example, the growing of six plants can lead to a six months sentence. The sentence cannot exceed six months, but it can also be six months under the new Bill C-10, when that takes effect in the Criminal Code: six months, six plants, no appeal. Does that seem at all proportionate to the kind of more nuanced decision making that we would want our laws to recognize. We hope that would never be used as a basis by the system to seek to deport somebody in and of itself, but there is nothing protecting against that result the way it is written.

The biggest problem is that the lower the threshold, the more people will be caught by it. More people who have permanent residence and landed immigrant status will suddenly be put in this category of deportable, even though what they have done in the grand scheme of things is not nearly as serious as what used to be the case under the law.

We have to begin to reflect on how much ownership we have to take of those among us who get into criminal trouble, who do end up with sentences right at the edge of six months, eight months, nine months. Who is responsible? What society is responsible for dealing with that issue? Is it always the other country that has a formal nationality, a country that a person may not have seen in 30 years, a person who may have come here at age two or age three and does not even speak the language of the other country, for example, or is it the country where the person grew up and basically produced the condition under which the crime occurred? We are not responsible for it, but we are that person's brothers and sisters. How do we think about the fact that the lower the threshold is, the more likely it is that people among us will end up in the headlights of the minister or the department of administrative immigration for this kind of deportation.

In the general sense, the bill may not appear offensive to those on the other side or to many in society, but when we look at how minimal the trigger is for somebody to be deported with no right of appeal, we really have to question whether this is the way our society wants to go. Two years itself is already something that was a compromise. Why we have gone to six months has escaped me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I talked earlier about how the government was doing such a huge disservice to those 1.5 million permanent residents who called Canada their home. For a wide variety of reasons, many of them are unable to obtain their citizenship. In many of those cases, it is in part because the government has been so negligent in terms of not processing the citizenship applications in a timely fashion.

However, the way in which this issue has been dealt with puts a wide tarnishing brush that makes all permanent residents look bad in the eyes of many, by classifications like “foreign criminals” and such. Many sentences actually incorporate the word “criminal”, for example drinking and driving for a first-time offender. There are many different examples and I suspect a vast majority of Canadians would not support the fact that everyone who becomes a criminal should be deported from Canada. Would the member share the same concern that I and other members of the Liberal Party have in regard to that fact?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share some of the concerns. I am not convinced that the government itself wants to tar people with that brush in that way.

As I started out by saying, the phraseology in the act refers to foreign criminals. For the 1.5 million or more landed immigrants or permanent residents in our country, a number the member indicated but I do not know if it is the figure, the effect of that word “foreign” is to create this kind of us/them within our own society. Some consequences for some people will be much worse than for others, even though they are just as much members of our community and Canadians in our country as somebody who has gone to the next step and become a citizen.

Therefore, I have a problem with the effect. Whether it is part of the intention, I have doubts. I cannot imagine that is the intention of the government.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice seeing you in the chair. It is the first time I have had the chance to congratulate you and the first time I have seen you in the chair.

I have a question for the hon. member across and I appreciate the approach. Based on the member's speech, there is an issue which he hopes to deal with at committee, meaning he assumes it will get to committee, and I appreciate his support in getting it there. The issue is that the six-month criterion is already there in the previous legislation, as clearly indicated by both the parliamentary secretary and the minister today. The difference is that there is an approach that for an offence that has a two year less a day incarceration there is an appeal process.

I want to be clear that this is his issue. He thinks there should be still a loophole. If the people in Toronto—Danforth told the member that they thought it appropriate that those who were not Canadian, those who had not bothered to become Canadians but were here as foreign nationals, committed serious crimes and if they did it in six months that appeal should be gone, would he change his position?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the people in my riding actually took that position and were able to argue it to me in a convincing way, obviously I would be open to changing my mind on things. The fact is that people in my riding live cheek by jowl, those who are citizens and those who are landed immigrants. Landed immigrant status can often last a very long time. It has nothing to do with dragging their feet but has a lot to do with the luck of the draw. Sometimes people are landed immigrants because they have come as children and do not opt for citizenship until quite a bit further in their lives. Then something happens where they get into trouble with the law.

The whole question I was trying to address was this. Whose community is responsible for people who get into some trouble with the law that can sometimes lead to six months versus two years, which is a huge gap? Who are responsible? The people themselves are responsible, but society as a whole has to bear some responsibility. What if those people know nothing about the society that we are thinking about deporting them to? Should we not think of them as our co-citizens, even though in the law they may not be citizens? That is my approach.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that what we are seeing here is a massive public relations operation, where the government is saying that it will be tough on crime; that is the Conservatives' mantra. It is an easy public relations operation in that, meanwhile, the government is ignoring what is really going on with immigration in Canada.

I will mention three recent examples that shocked me deeply. Unfortunately I feel there is no justification for what happened. This summer, 25 beach soccer players from Morocco requested a visitor's visa to play in a competition in Montreal. They were coming from the Olympic Games, so it was unlikely that one of them would seek refugee status. Unfortunately, these players were barred from Canada. Thirty-five Haitian businesswomen who wanted to come to Canada to present their achievements were also prohibited from entering and remaining in Canada because, according to the department, a number of them did not have the financial resources or did not provide enough of a guarantee that they were going to return to their country. This week some Burmese artists were prohibited from visiting Canada.

The number of foreign nationals from developing countries who are denied entry to Canada is growing. The government wants Canada to be a place where only the rich and famous can come, even if they have a criminal past. I am thinking in particular of a certain gentleman who was involved for many years in the media and who was given a red-carpet welcome.

This bill is a diversion tactic. I am specifically thinking about the concentration of powers in the minister's hands. The Conservatives are trying to politicize the immigration process in Canada by increasing the minister's powers. One clause in particular states that the minister can declare a foreigner inadmissible for up to 36 months if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations.

I would like to talk about the specific case of a buddy of mine who is locked up in Morocco, Mouad Belghouat. He is a Moroccan rapper who was charged and sentenced to one year in prison for showing police officers with donkey heads in one of his videos. He was sentenced to a year in prison. In Morocco, showing police officers with donkey heads is considered a serious crime. These officers were violently beating protestors.

It goes without saying that this sentence contravenes a number of international conventions on freedom of opinion and expression, including the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I have to wonder whether, in light of the minister's discretionary powers, Mouad would be allowed into Canada in the future. Would the serious crime that he allegedly committed in Morocco, according to Moroccan authorities, make him ineligible to come to Canada? Could the minister deem this foreigner inadmissible because he threatened the public interest in some way?

All this confuses me. The bill must be examined in more detail in committee so that we can limit the scope of the powers granted to the minister.

I think it would be a good thing for all parties in Parliament to work together so that this bill can be something other than a Conservative propaganda tool. This bill should truly target dangerous criminals instead of politicizing the Canadian immigration process, which is what it seems to be doing.

They say that these measures could affect 2,400 of the 1.5 million immigrants or refugee claimants. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism says that in some cases, people have drawn out their appeals for 20 years. According to my numbers, that is incorrect. Apparently, this new bill would reduce appeals periods by anywhere from 12 to 15 months. That is not on the same scale at all, which proves that the purpose of this bill is propaganda.

There are other important aspects, such as refusing an appeal by a person who has committed a crime punishable by six months in jail. A number of crimes could lead to deportation even though Canadian society, while not sanctioning them, does not view them as violent crimes or crimes against persons. The Conservatives do not seem to be very concerned about the impact of these deportations on families and children.

This whole issue needs to be cleared up in committee. I really hope the committee will amend parts of this bill in response to our concerns.

Thank you for your attention and interest.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, and I particularly enjoyed the examples that he slipped into his speech.

I would like him to comment or provide his opinion to see if he shares a certain vision. Actually, in listening to the debates since this morning, I have the impression that, with Bill C-43, the Conservatives are trying to depict a very simple, if not simplistic, situation: there are good guys and bad guys; it is black or white. But in my distinguished colleague's speech, it seems that there were many shades of grey, in various situations.

It makes me wonder whether this simple situation, if that is what it is, is truly so simple—when he talks, among other things, about the possibility of the minister's reviewing a foreigner's admissibility—when I hear phrases like: “if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations.” It seems to me that, with such phrases, the hon. member is being completely subjective. However, the picture the Conservatives have been painting since this morning, particularly with their examples, is that the situation is simple, black or white, and that is that.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue of putting the public interest at risk is an idea that is not explained in the bill. Then there is the issue of serious criminality.

We will recall that the Conservatives talk about serious criminality in their bill. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth just mentioned the fact that having six marijuana plants would lead to imprisonment of six months or more and that the Conservatives could consider that serious criminality. I am sorry, but in Canada, the vast majority of the population does not consider having six marijuana plants to be a major crime. People expect there to be some tolerance in that respect. In that sense, this bill lacks balance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

I find that this bill really limits the minister's power when it comes to humanitarian circumstances in cases where the best interests of the child are directly involved. The bill provides for a very minor exception in terms of humanitarian circumstances.

Would my colleague agree that there should be more exceptions available to the minister when it comes to exercising his or her powers for humanitarian reasons?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Indeed, the bill takes away the minister's responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances. I have the impression that this bill takes powers away from the minister that we would like him to have, and gives him powers that we do not want him to have

That is why it needs some work. The opposition will participate in good faith in order to achieve the desired goals and to ensure that this bill does not simply serve as a public relations device so the Conservatives can look good.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that Bill C-43 is called the faster removal of foreign criminals act. However, one of the key items in the bill would give the minister the power to declare a person inadmissible for up to 36 months according to whatever public policy consideration he may choose to use. That has nothing to do with reporting people or removing criminals; it is really about something completely different. Is that not very deceiving?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am saying: it is a public relations tactic.

This bill and its provisions could have been included in the huge omnibus bill that was introduced with the budget, since these measures complement the ones it contained.

The Conservatives purposely isolated this bill in order to get some media attention. They wanted to show that they are being tough on crime and tough on criminals. Basically, they could have gotten the same work done in co-operation with the opposition.

I hope we can do that work in the days and weeks to come.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will be sharing my time.

We are supporting this bill's going forward at second reading, with some very strong reservations. As we have seen throughout the debate here today, the reservations speak to a number of issues in the bill that certainly involve moving further than simply the faster removal of foreign criminals

One issue we have great concern about is the concentration of more power in the hands of the minister, giving him the discretionary ability based on public policy considerations to restrict the entrance of foreign nationals, making them inadmissible for up to 36 months.

We have seen the parliamentary secretary stand up and admit that on the face of it, this is very controversial and really needs a lot of work. I think back to what has happened during my time in Parliament and the minister's actions. At his discretion, he refused entrance into Canada of former British MP George Galloway. In a resulting court case, Mr. Galloway challenged the minister over this. The Ontario supreme court came out with a 60-page decision castigating the minister for exercising this authority in that way that excluded Mr. Galloway based on certain political considerations.

Therefore, we really have to be very careful with this. This is treading into an area that has been a minefield in Canada in the past. I think back to the period before the Second World War, when we refused massive numbers of refugees from Eastern Europe because of political considerations, not because they were bad people or criminals who were going to cause a lot of trouble in Canada. No, it was because political factors were taken into consideration. If we are moving back in a direction of looking at political considerations and opening up that door where we have not been for a while, I think it is something we have to look at very carefully.

We are relieving the minister of the responsibility of looking at humanitarian circumstances in these matters, where human beings' lives are being altered irrevocably by the decisions we are making, and not making the minister look at the situation created by the acts of Canadians officials in expelling people from the country. I think that is really not in the Canadian mould. We tend to say that we believe in the sanctity of families, that we believe in the importance of paying careful attention to children, to the kinds of things that tie people together in a particular instance.

To simply say that we are going to relieve the minister of that responsibility needs some definite explanation. Why should the minister not want to have some ability to deal with this? Why should this not be part of his responsibility? When we have an impact upon people's lives, we need to understand that it is our responsibility and that we need to look at those things in the context they are presented. It is not that simple.

One provision that I find very difficult is the proposed increase in the penalty for misrepresentation. We are all MPs here. We all have offices. We all see people coming in, immigrants, landed immigrants, and people who are looking to get their parents or children into the country. The forms can lend themselves to mistakes.

The difference between a mistake and a misrepresentation is sometimes a very narrow line. When it comes to someone's educational qualifications, he or she may say, “I went to school there. I graduated there”. Is that acceptable? Can he or she prove it? Are there other issues that come into the presentation or the information that may need some clarification?

We need to look very hard at what “misrepresentation” means and what it entails. That can be done in committee. How can we define it carefully so we are not simply shutting people who make a mistake out of the country. We have to be very careful with that. It is something that can lead to all kinds of problems for people.

What constitutes “serious criminality?” This is something we have had a good debate on today. Quite obviously, when we move from a sentence of two years down to a sentence of six months, we are moving the bar pretty low. We are taking that bar right down so the ability of someone to get under it will be much more difficult. We really need to understand it. I assume the committee will go through some statistical analysis of what it will mean, what kind of offences have been generated that produce a sentence of six months in contrast to those that would produce sentences of two years.

Certainly, we have all seen people go to prison for six months for fairly minor offences that do not justify the disruption of their family life or taking them away from employer, if they happen to be good employees, doing all of that for something that is criminal but not necessarily of a serious nature. Therefore, the definition really needs work.

It will be interesting to see how it comes back from committee and what happens with the bill, what kinds of amendments and definitions are struck so we can truly understand how this will impact society.

I trust the Conservatives will follow the example the parliamentary secretary set with the one particular passage in the bill that he clearly stated needed work. We need an understanding of the whole bill in a very careful fashion, which can come through committee. After that, we can see whether the bill will be acceptable to this party. I am sure there will be further consideration of that.

These are important issues which are not to be taken lightly. I trust the government will go into that committee with the good intention of really coming to grips with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have a couple of briefings both with the parliamentary library as well as the minister's office with respect to the bill. I made reference to the fact that if Bill C-43 were to pass, Nelson Mandela's wife would not have been able to have visited Canada during a very interesting time in world history. It was pointed out to me that Mr. Mandela's wife had some issues relating to the law too so that might not necessarily have been a good example. However, one can make reference to Mahatma Gandhi's wife, as she would not have qualified to visit Canada. I thought that was somewhat interesting.

The point is that if this law is passed, it will have a significant impact on individuals to be able to visit Canada, not because of their own personal behaviour but because of the behaviour associated with someone in their family. By doing that, we are denying those individuals the opportunity to visit family in Canada.

Could the member comment on the unfairness of that, especially given that in the same legislation the minister is taking the power to deny someone the ability to come to Canada? There is a bit of a contradiction there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, over the past seven years as an MP, I have seen many people turned down visiting Canada, joining their family here. I had the example of that rather forcefully put to me about a week ago in Yellowknife, when a fellow told me that his grandparents would never get to see their children in Canada. That example speaks to the problem that exists in the immigration system, where we view people with a jaundiced eye when it comes to their motives.

Now we are going to add on another characteristic where a person's entire family will be under scrutiny in order for it visit Canada. We have another piece that will make it more difficult for family reconciliation, or the humanitarian comfort that we seem to want to deny people who come to our country to build the country, to make it a success. We put all these burdens on them. This is one that also deserves great attention.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated one of the points raised by my colleague—the issue of misrepresentation. I think he has identified something very important: there can be a difference between intentional misrepresentation and misrepresentation caused by a mistake. In the case of immigrants, mistakes can arise because the perception of what constitutes a crime is different from one country to another, and from one culture to another. For example, political prisoners may be considered to be common criminals in their country, while we see them as political prisoners.

If he can, I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this aspect that he started to explain.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, once again, “misrepresentation” is a very interesting word. Are we to go in front of a judge to determine whether someone has lied or has simply made a mistake on his or her form? No, it will probably be done by somebody in an embassy in Turkey, for instance, where someone would look at the thing and say that its not correct, that the person did not do that, and that is the end of it. In the experience of it in my office, that is where many of these many misrepresentation issues start and finish.

This concept of increasing the time to five years on an issue that is already a very difficult issue is something we have to deal with very carefully.

In fact, if we were to get some clarity on “misrepresentation” within the bill, that may actually help the situation generally in our country, so we can ensure our embassy staff worldwide are very well-acquainted with understanding the importance of determining the difference between “misrepresentation” and “mistake”.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, agriculture and agri-food; the member for Guelph, agriculture and agri-food; the member for Windsor West, public safety.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address you as Mr. Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to the chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding Bill C-43, which I hope will be addressed in further study at committee. New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. However, this bill seems to extend beyond this and effectively removes some of the required checks and balances within our immigration system.

I have a few concerns with the changes included in Bill C-43. Bill C-43 would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister, giving the minister new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. It would relieve the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances and as well would change what would constitute serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility.

Previously a conviction in Canada with a sentence of two years or more resulted in an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal at the Immigration Appeal Division. Bill C-43, however, would revoke the right to appeal inadmissibility when there would be a conviction of six months or more.

New Democrats have said time and again that we do not support closing the door to an appeal process as it is an essential component of checks and balances in our immigration system.

An appeal process allows officials to make determinations on an individual basis, weighing all the factors to determine if someone should or should not be deported. Further to this, with the government's tough on crime agenda, we have seen a whole slew of crimes receive a mandatory minimum sentence of more than six months. The change from two years to six months merits further study of the offences that would now be included in this.

This concentration of power in the hands of one minister is a trend we continue to see under the government and is a cautionary tale of the direction of our immigration system under a Conservative majority. Granting the minister the power to unilaterally prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on public policy considerations is a vague and broad discretion.

The broad and far-reaching powers given to the minister in Bill C-43 seem to once again go too far and require balance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard at play when it comes to ministerial authority. When convicted foreign criminal, Conrad Black wanted back in Canada, the minister claimed that the matter was handled independently, yet now he wants the power to deport criminals.

Across the country, immigration and health experts have been raising their concerns to the changes in the bill. There are concerns among advocates that the bill runs a risk of deporting offenders who arrive in Canada with their parents at a very young age. Despite Canada being the only home they know and grew up in, we would deport them to a country about which they may know nothing.

Moreover, professionals who work with immigrants and refugees have stated that this new federal legislation unfairly punishes the young and people with mental illness. Bill C-43 has been marketed exclusively on its intent to speed up deportations of serious multiple offenders. However, the devil is in the details and these details merit further study and expert opinion.

What I also find particularly troubling throughout the course of immigration changes the government has introduced is the language that the Conservative government continues to use when speaking about newcomers in our country.

When discussing Bill C-31, refugees who were fleeing war-torn countries to save their lives were continually referred to as “bogus” and “queue jumpers” in need of mandatory detention by the members opposite. Now under Bill C-43, permanent residents are referred as “foreigners”. This term is misleading and wide-sweeping, completely neglecting the fact that permanent residents have spent the majority of their lives in Canada, contributing to our communities and paying taxes.

The majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding citizens who do not commit crimes. Rather than introducing legislation that continues to demonize newcomers, where is the support for newcomers who follow the rules? Why is the government not spending more time ensuring that the majority of newcomers in Canada are being treated fairly and are not waiting three to five years to be reunited with their partners and children? We need a government that acts to help new Canadians reunite with their families and find work that matches their skill set.

The New Democrats look to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process without trampling on rights. We continue to stand with newcomers who want the government to focus on making our immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority who do not commit crimes and follow the rules.

We can allow the systems currently in place, including our immigration tribunal and Canadian judiciary, to do their work or provide them with the necessary resources to do the job effectively rather than trivializing the judicial process and giving the minister the authority to arbitrarily make decisions. I should add, if the minister were serious about improving Canada's immigration and refugee system, he would stop appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

We could also do what the Auditor General has repeatedly recommended and make improvements to the current system and administration of the laws currently in place, including proper training, service standards and quality assurance checks.

Rather than continually portraying newcomers negatively, the government should focus on giving law enforcement the resources it needs to keep us safe from all criminals.

I spent the summer talking to constituents about community safety and social issues in Scarborough. What I heard from constituents were worries and concerns for the need for support and prevention strategies to keep our youth from turning to crime and actions from the federal government to keep our communities safe. At the end of the day, victims were concerned that crimes were being committed in their communities and steps were not being taken to prevent these crimes.

I hope the government will take the concerns raised by experts, myself and my colleagues on this side of the House seriously at the committee level and that it will listen to the experts' warnings about the impacts and consequences of the bill on people with the intention of improvements and upholding rights,.

It is a warning to us all that some of the concerns raised by experts during the study of Bill C-31 are already being realized. Thanks to Bill C-31, all refugee claimants are now banned from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment within one year of receiving a negative answer on their claim. This assessment is used as a second chance to consider whether it is truly safe to send a rejected claimant back to his or her country of origin.

Last week, we learned of a woman from Iran who could face deportation despite new evidence proving that she faces an adultery charge that could, under sharia law, result in her being stoned to death. Although her lawyer obtained new documents to speak to her refugee claim, because of the changes included in Bill C-31, this new evidence cannot be considered by the Canada Border Service Agency officials because of the one-year rule.

I recall hearing this very concern raised, that new evidence can come to light during this one-year period, during the Bill C-31 study at committee. Unfortunately, this concern, along with many others, fell on the deaf ears of our government and were left unaddressed.

I hope that this is not repeated during the study of Bill C-43 in committee, but rather that we listen to the experts and work together to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process while upholding our Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take up the issue of citizenship because it is about priorities.

If we follow the way in which the minister has handled this file since he announced it back in June, he tries to give the impression that if people land in Canada they should hurry up and get their citizenship. He has made it very clear that this is a top priority, even though there is actually a very small percentage of people who would be affected by it.

On the other hand, and this is where the issue of priorities comes up, we have 100,000-plus individuals who are in the system waiting for their citizenship. They have now been waiting a year and a half to two years in order to get their citizenship because they feel good about being here in Canada.

I wonder if the member would comment on that particular priority. The bill is all about citizenship and yet we have a minister who is dragging his feet in terms of getting people their citizenship. Does she see some irony there?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North sat on the immigration committee with me when we studied the backlogs within Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He is right when he says that many permanent residents in Canada are waiting an extra year, two years or even three years in order to have their citizenship applications processed once they have gone through the test.

It is quite ironic that the minister now wants to take on arbitrary powers to deport more people in Canada who are contributing to our communities, to their economic viability, as well as their vibrancy. These people want to become permanent Canadian citizens and yet they do not have the ability to do so as they wait two, three, however many number of years.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on our side have enormous concerns about the gradual increase in powers that ministers on that side want for themselves. They talk a line about accessibility, oversight and transparency but they do not walk the walk.

Does it concern my hon. colleague that we have a government that likes $16 orange juice, nice limousine rides and free bungee cords off helicopters? Is she concerned that more and more we are seeing ministers in the government trying to get as much power with as little transparency as possible?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport hit the nail on the head when he said that the ministers seem to want more powers for themselves and take them away from the systems we have created in Canada that have kept our country safe and preserved our Canadian values over many years.

What is sad is that, when government legislation is introduced, we see ministers wanting more discretion for themselves. They are making a mockery of our judiciary when they say that our boards, tribunals and justice system as they are cannot get the job done and that one lone minister needs to have all the powers and will get it done right away. It is wrong to say that experts and the judiciary cannot get the job done.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that, as we have gone through this debate, we on this side of the House seem to be the only party interested in what is going on. I have not heard a lot of questions or comments from the other side.

Bill C-43 is called the faster removal of foreign criminals act. The minister himself suggested that the bill would make it possible for legitimate visitors and immigrants to get better treatment. This bill may do that in a tiny way but it would not do it for the majority of well-meaning and non-criminal persons currently in Canada or those who want to come to Canada who are being treated with the slowest process since God made molasses. It is an incredibly slow process.

I have the privilege of representing the riding of York South--Weston which has an immigrant population of well over 50% and well over half live in apartment buildings. That is one of the reasons that my riding is a magnet for refugees and those refugees will be the ones facing the worst time of their lives as a result of the government's new applications. These refugees will find it more difficult to become Canadian citizens because it will be harder for them to reach all of the required thresholds. They will also find it more difficult to sponsor family members once they do become citizens.

The minister suggested that lessening the rules against spies would make it so much easier for persons to come to Canada and stay in Canada. If individuals spied against Canada or Canada's interests, they would not be considered a spy if they were spying for some other country or in some other country. Reading between the lines, it may be that the government is also adding industrial spying to that, although it is hard to tell. I am assuming that would make it easier for the tens of thousands of people who come to Canada, I say tongue-in-cheek, because that is clearly not a big problem.

The minister also suggested that if one member of a group does not meet the criteria, for medical reasons or otherwise, the whole group would be turned down. I agree that that is an excellent use of this legislation. That would actually cause some people to come to Canada who were otherwise be turned down. However, as I will tell members later, there are far more people being turned down for temporary visas without any reason. This is only a small part of the big problem.

The minister also suggested that the Minister of Public Safety could offer relief in some cases. Again, this another tiny piece of the puzzle.

The parliamentary secretary made it clear in his comments that the government's objective is to reduce the backlog of problems created by people coming to this country, and he referred specifically to the backlog that affected temporary foreign workers and the backlog that affected permanent skilled workers taking jobs that are not being filled by Canadians.

Missing from both of those objectives is the huge backlog of family reunification applications. There are probably hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases, some of which will take as many as 14 years from application to reunification because of the delays in processing and because there are not enough people working for the minister to get these things done. We have examples.

A woman wants to sponsor her husband but it is taking an unusual amount of time for the application to be processed. The background check is taking a long time to complete. The couple has been repeatedly asked to wait until a security background is completed, which means they have had to file several sets of medicals at their own expense. The application for sponsorship was forwarded in 2008, four years ago.

Another individual tried to sponsor his parents starting in 2007. They have now had three medicals because they keep expiring because it is taking so long.

Where is the government on trying to figure out how to make these things faster? The Conservatives are talking about getting criminals out faster, but they are not talking about getting deserving sponsored immigrants into the country faster.

Another person has been sponsoring his parents and siblings since 2003. We are now talking nine years. They have now gone through three medicals and they have had their third police clearance done because they keep expiring. In the meantime, the father has passed away. That is what happens when the system takes too long: people die in other countries as a result.

A woman, a convention refugee, who applied for permanent residence, also included her 11-year-old son in her application. Her son is alone in Nigeria. Immigration officials have said, “Too bad, there is a 24-month wait to process her application”.

Another individual has been sponsoring parents and one dependent sister since 2008 and is still waiting. The list goes on and on, and this is but a small sampling of those we have heard about in my office. There are hundreds more in my office, and I have only been there since last year, who have run afoul of the system. We are having to tell them that it takes 14 years, 10 years or nine years, and their parents or their grandparents will die before the application goes through.

Then there is the backlog in skilled worker applications that the minister talked about. Yet with the stroke of a pen the minister actually got rid of hundreds of thousands of skilled worker applications and forced them all to apply again. How is that speeding anything in our system? We are talking about speeding the removal of foreign criminals, but we are not doing anything to speed up the process for legitimate people who want to come to this country and provide a skilled, valued service to this country.

I have one applicant who has been trying to come to Canada for five years. He made the application before the “stroke of the pen” issue. At the time he applied, the language requirement was less stringent than it is today. He has studied and worked in the United States. He taught in the United States, so obviously his English is good but somehow he failed the English test that was given to him out of Cambridge University in England.

Why we are giving British tests for Canadian English is beyond me. To a person who is not a native-born speaker, it may be difficult. He found it difficult. He missed by one point. He is a doctor. We need doctors. He is actually certified to practise in this country. He wants to bring his wife with him, who is also a doctor, and his daughter, who is in medical school. They cannot come because he fell short by one point because the language requirement was no good. The skilled worker application has its flaws too.

As for temporary foreign workers, the other side keeps crowing about the many jobs they have created. How many of them are filled by temporary foreign workers? There are over 300,000 jobs currently filled by temporary foreign workers. They are temporary, so that is in the last two years. Since the last recession ended or whenever the economic meltdown happened under the Conservative watch, over 300,000 of those supposed new jobs they have created are actually being filled by temporary foreign workers.

Now, with a stroke of the pen, the minister has decided those foreign workers can be paid 15% less than their Canadian counterparts, so it will be even easier for an employer to say they cannot find anybody because the employer is offering 15% less than the going rate. People are not taking the jobs, so the employer wants to hire foreigners.

We have temporary foreign workers flying planes in this country. We do not have a shortage of airline pilots in this country, but we have temporary foreign workers working for some airlines.

There is something wrong with this system. It would appear to be a part of the Conservative economic action plan to drive down wages in this country through the use of temporary foreign workers at 15% reductions, through the use of reductions in EI that force people to take wages at 30% lower rates than they earned before, and by doing all this, the Conservative can then say, “Hey, our economic action plan is working. We are improving Canadians' productivity. We are getting more out of them for less”.

That is not what Canadians want. Canadians do not want to be working for less money, to have their standard of living eroded by the government. They want real action on the economy and they do not want it through the use of temporary foreign workers, which the parliamentary secretary referred to as a good thing.

We also have a whole bunch of issues with the PRRA system, the pre-removal risk assessment. I have a couple of examples here. We have an individual who is being deported to Spain. His mother is a refugee in Canada who has finalized her refugee status and is actually allowed to stay in Canada. She was born in Peru. He was born in Spain as a result of her being raped. Now he is being deported back to Spain because he was not covered by her refugee application. He is 12 years old. He knows no one in Spain. Spain is the last place he wants to go because it was the source of a lot of pain for his family. What government does this to people?

Now the new rules would be: no entitlement to a PRRA because we do not want to do that anymore.

These are examples of how the system is not working. We are tinkering on the edges with something that might appeal to the Conservative base across the way because it has to do with law and order. It might appeal to the baser instincts of some individuals in the Conservative base, because they can tout it as law and order. However, it is such a small part of the overall problem of immigration in our country that it is difficult to imagine that so much time and effort is being spent on this kind of thing instead of on the real problems that face immigrants in our country, instead of on the real problems that face those who are already here and those who should be here as a result of sponsorship applications. Those delays in the sponsorship applications are costing lives. People are dying in other countries.

The minister also mentioned in his speech this afternoon that he is spending lots more money on immigrant settlement services. He mentioned a figure of $35 million. Well, it sure is not happening in my riding. My riding has seen cut after cut in immigrant settlement services to the point where some organizations have folded altogether. Is that because we have fewer immigrants coming to my riding? No, there are lots coming to the riding. In fact, there are two apartment buildings that are now full of Roma refugees in the last two years, so much so that the superintendent has had to go out and hire a Hungarian translator because he cannot communicate with these people. They are coming to the riding in great numbers but the services that they are asking for keep disappearing.

We have a 6% cut at Access Alliance; a 4.2% at COSTI, which caused a layoff; a 10% cut at the Learning Enrichment Foundation. Midaynta lost all of its funding, $400,000. It has closed up. York Weston Community Services Centre lost $800,000. It closed, with twelve and a half people laid off. Languages that are no longer helped in this riding are Dinka, Nuer, Spanish, Arabic, French, Kiswahili, Russian, Farsi, Dari and Somali.

York Weston Community Services Centre was urged the previous year to sign a long-term lease. It did. The government said the organization was good for it and that it should sign the five-year lease. It signed it and then all of its budget was cut, some $800,000 gone. Northwood Neighbourhood Services lost $378,000, which caused the layoff of five settlement workers and admin staff. That is 100% of its Citizenship and Immigration Canada funds. It gets money from other places, so it is only 30% of its overall budget.

These things are happening in my riding. For the minister to tell us, bold-faced, that he is spending more on settlement services is just crazy. Community Action Resource Centre lost $305,000, which was 40% of its budget. It lost all of the federal funding. It still has some provincial funding, but it has lost 12 staff. It has caused layoffs in my riding, which is already a riding with a huge unemployment problem.

The Vietnamese Women's Association lost $30,000 in Citizenship and Immigration Canada funding. Access Alliance lost $300,000. Toronto District School Board's newcomer services for youth lost 100% of its funding and the program was closed.

There actually are many more but I am going to run out of time if I read them all. The point is that the government is single-mindedly focused on the wrong problem. There is a problem with settlement services in the riding. There is a problem with immigration systems into the riding. There is a problem with the family sponsorship system and with too many temporary foreign workers being allowed to come to this country and take jobs that would otherwise be filled by Canadians.

Rather than focusing on those problems, the government is going to speed up the removal of a handful of criminals, and not necessarily even the right criminals. Because of the cuts to the immigrant settlement funding we now have employers in the riding telling us that it is making it difficult for them to employ the skilled immigrants coming into the country under skilled worker applications because they do not have the necessary fail-safes and backup mechanisms and training to learn how to live in Canada. Those things are not there any more.

Employers are coming to my office and saying it is a problem for them as employers. They are saying that they cannot be as productive or efficient as employers because although these people have great skills to do the jobs, they are not getting along in Canada because the settlement services are just not there. Maybe we need some Conservatives to actually listen to these employers and hear the fact that cutting settlement services was not a good thing. Cutting the settlement services also makes it difficult for the children of these recent immigrants.

I have a huge Somali community in my riding, again because my riding is a place where it is easy for refugees to come because the rents are so cheap and the riding is full of low-income housing. Those Somali refugees have been here for maybe as long as 20 years. It has been 42 years since there was an election in Somalia. The country just had an election this month and a new president was elected. There was a big party celebrating that because they are hopeful that maybe Somalia will turn itself around.

However, the problem is this. We have the tragedy of six Somali youth this summer who were tragically murdered in what we can only assume was some kind of gangland problem, but it raises the spectre of what happens to those disaffected Somali youth when their settlement services are gone, when they have no hope, no job, no help from the government, when the services that even the ministry of public safety had have been cut? There have been cuts and more cuts and these kids have no hope. Some of them turn to crime as a result. What is going to happen to those kids who get a six-month or longer sentence and who are 18 years of age and have been in Canada 17 of those 18 years but are still Somali? They are going to get deported to a country that is war-torn, that really has no government, that is unsafe and where they have no family. That is just wrong.

I said earlier that the wrong people are perhaps going to be deported and I would point to those Somali youth in that regard. With just one bad occurrence they will have a record, but are now going to have an even bigger problem. If the sentence is six months or more, they will get kicked out of the country without their family.

Yet as I said to the minister earlier, Conrad Black is still here and although the crime he committed in the U.S. could apparently have been punished by a 14-year sentence here in Canada, he is still here. It tells us that there seems to be a double standard. There seems to be a system that if someone is just stealing money from ordinary Canadians through some kind of fraudulent system, that is okay and the person can come back.

I also want to comment because Todd Baylis Boulevard is in my riding and was named after the Todd Baylis who was killed. We in the NDP will do anything we can to make sure that kind of thing does not happen again. We are not opposed to the part of the bill that would prevent a criminal being left in this country long enough to be able to commit crimes of a violent nature, nor would we ever be. However, we want to make sure that it is done in a way that is fair and honest and does not rest so much power in the hands of one or two ministers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the government tries to give Canadians the impression through Bill C-43 that there are all these foreign criminals here who have to be dealt with, there is also a great deal of concern that we maybe also need to look at the other side when the member talks about the issue of priorities. There are immigrants who are exploited by immigration consultants and employment agencies and we do not necessarily hear of the same sorts of actions by the government in trying to deal with them.

Over the weekend I met an unfortunate person who was a live-in caregiver. In her situation, she was the victim of an employer who had been using his authority for purposes of sexual exploitation. She is fearful of how this will impact her as someone who wants ultimately to be a landed immigrant here in Canada.

Inside the House of Commons, we should be talking about other areas of concern that negatively impact those people who are being exploited. That priority does not seem to be there for the government. Would the member comment on that, given that he was talking about the exploitation—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right and I believe there has been serious criticism levelled at the government recently over the abuse that is possible, particularly of temporary foreign workers. Their living conditions and standards can be abusive, and we in this country should not abide any system whereby anyone here is exploited, abused or ill-treated by an employer or by anyone else.

That is just as much a crime as allowing a criminal to stay here. We should be focusing on all of the systemic problems within our immigration system, not just the ones that score cheap points with a Conservative base. That is what we should be looking at. We should be doing this completely, not just in bits and pieces aimed at allowing the government to call this a law and order issue.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well the real-life ramifications of the wrong-headed direction of the government as it pertains to immigrants, new Canadians and refugees. We on our side have declared frequently and openly that in cases of violent crimes we want to ensure that non-Canadians who commit them are subject to the heavy hand of the law.

However, we are concerned that there are immigrant families, new Canadians, who have grave concerns about the government's ability to understand the complexity and nuances of the reality that is Canada today. This piece of legislation does not give them any confidence that the government understands that the world is much more complex than the Pleasantville, faux reality that it seems to live in every single day.

Could my hon. colleague expand a bit more on the family, human dimension of some of these misguided policies of the government?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the family dimension is by far the most compelling part of what I see first-hand.

Generally speaking, when an immigrant with a problem comes into my office, he or she comes with two or three children and a story that would break one's heart. They come for a sympathetic ear, but they are also looking for me to turn that sympathy into action on the part of the government. All too often that is not possible, probably 90%, 95%, 99% of the time. These are tragic stories of people who, in many cases, for no reason whatsoever have run afoul of a system that is not working but broken.

I will give members an example. A woman had taken maternity leave and was sponsoring her husband to come here from another country. She had a really good job and took maternity leave. She was then in a car accident a month later. Because she had taken maternity leave and had used up her EI, she no longer qualified for EI. Her employer kept her job for her. However, she did not have enough money for food. As she and her baby needed to eat, she went to the welfare office. The welfare office then told immigration, which then said, “You're no longer qualified to sponsor your husband”.

That is the kind of loophole that results from EI and immigration problems and causes a Catch-22, which I see in my office all the time. These are the kind of problems that we should be looking at fixing.

I agree that we should make it possible for the government to remove foreign criminals. I always thought that it already did have that ability. If it is telling us that there is a lengthy appeal process that violent criminals should not have access to, maybe the government is right.

However, that is not exactly what the bill says. I think we need to expand the scope of what we do and look at all the problems that we face in the immigration world.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the sentencing of criminals being lessened from two years to six months. However, that is based upon the fact it would be for a dual procedure offence. Some of the dual procedure offences that are in the Criminal Code include sexual assault, sexual exploitation, fraud and robbery. That is based upon whether the Crown and/or the defence want to proceed by indictment or the dual procedure. Therefore, if we go by dual procedure and go down to a summary conviction of six months, it does not lessen the fact that the act is just as serious as it would be under indictment.

Would the member agree that even though a person may be convicted of sexual assault and only get a six-month sentence, he or she is not deserving of this type of application through this bill?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a mug's game to try to second-guess which six-month crimes and under which circumstances we should be deciding to deport people for. That is essentially what we would be doing, as we would be kicking them out the country.

The example the member gave may very well be an example of a person who should not have the right of appeal, who should be in fact told “Okay, once your six month sentence is up, you're being deported. Here is the plane ticket and you are out of the country”, although I should add that we do not give way plane tickets any more, but we make them buy the tickets themselves.

It is difficult for me to start to guess what crimes people have committed can be used by this legislation.

The example was given earlier of a person who happens to grow six pot plants. I know of such a person who grows them for his mother who has multiple sclerosis. It is not trafficking because he is giving them away, but he happens to grow six. Luckily, he has not been caught. If he had been caught, it would a minimum six-month sentence. With a six-month sentence, that person, if he were not from Canada, would be deported automatically for trying to do good.

That is the kind of nuance that is missing from the bill. As described by my colleague from Newton—North Delta, it is hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. There are very few people who are causing trouble for the system and yet we are using an enormous bill to try to get at them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us as members of Parliament can relate many heartbreaking stories about what is going on in the immigration system. However, I want to ask the member a question about Bill C-43.

I asked one of his colleagues about the lack of ministerial discretion to make an exception on compassionate grounds. It is limited only to where a child is directly affected. However, there is sweeping discretion that is quite mind-boggling in clause 8, which states:

The minister may, on the Minister's own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

Public policy considerations are not defined.

The member's speech, of course, spoke to deporting people. What about refusing to allow someone to become a permanent resident with no real criteria being applied?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the member that the discretion in that circumstance is very strangely put.

Without any guidelines, without any indication of exactly what a public policy consideration is, one could imagine, certainly in a third world country, a gazillion different things that would be public policy considerations that would keep people from becoming Canadian citizens.

We are not a third world country, but the same problem exists in that there is no definition, no direction and no example given of what a public policy consideration is. It is a very scary prospect.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we share the government's concern about serious crimes committed by individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

As a result of this principle, we support this bill at second reading. However, we still have some concerns about this bill, which we feel casts too wide a net over immigrants.

I would like to use a simple analogy to explain the situation to Canadians watching today. When I was young, one of Greenpeace's big campaigns in the 1980s was to save the dolphins. The problem at the time was that tuna fishers were catching dolphins in their nets because the nets were too big. As a result of a campaign against this action and pressure on the processing companies, they changed their way of doing things. That is why we see the “Dolphin Friendly” logo on cans of tuna.

I hope that, as a result of the concerns we voice about this bill and the work done in committee, the Conservatives will make sensible changes to improve this bill so that it becomes “Immigrant Friendly.”

With this story, I want to illustrate two things: first, Bill C-43 is a big net, perhaps too big, and in our desire to catch criminals, innocent immigrants are going to get caught in this large net and get hurt in the process. We have some suggestions for improving this bill.

Like most Canadians, we are concerned about criminals and crime, but we want to proceed responsibly and not engage in demagoguery, as the members on the government side often do.

Before explaining what we want to improve, I would like to point out that the opposition's priorities are the economy and the quality of services, such as health care, provided to Canadians. It is sad to see the government fuel stereotypes by focusing on bills that target immigrants and establishing a link between criminal behaviour and immigration.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, the vast majority of immigrants are honest. They work hard if we let them.

I would also like to mention that crime is a complex process. One of the causes of criminal behaviour is poverty, and not a person's country of origin.

We know that, historically, immigrants have often been targeted and seen as a threat to the well-being of a population during periods of economic crisis.

I hope that the government is not trying to fuel stereotypes. Crime is not really widespread in the immigrant communities, but the government is dwelling on the extreme cases. As we say in English:

It is just a few bad apples.

Keeping with my focus on the economy, I would like to address immigration and our economy and point out where the government's priorities should lie, in general, regarding immigration issues. Then, after talking about where the priorities should be, I would like to look at this particular piece of legislation and point out its useful elements and perhaps where some of the weaknesses lie.

The reason I would like to emphasize this, in a more general sense at first, is that criminality is so often the result of social marginalization and the economic difficulty of individuals and their communities. As I mentioned before, it is not linked to their country of origin or where they come from in the world but to much more complex factors, which I will get into.

First of all, instead of focusing on the few bad apples as the government has, the government should instead focus on the lost economic opportunities of our immigrant communities.

In a study by the University of Ottawa Research Group on the Economics of Immigration, the researchers found that if we found better ways to integrate our permanent residents, such as if their salary scale were similar to that of domestic labourers—in other words, if they were on a more even playing field with domestic workers—we would see a net increase in real GDP. We would also see better labour productivity and an improved federal fiscal balance. If the government is serious about the economy—and it says its priority is on the economy and jobs—focusing on those elements of our immigration system would offer far better benefits than putting the priority on the criminalization aspects of immigration law.

The study further found that immigration can help solve the issue of population aging. It was an interesting factoid in this research. We often hear from the government that OAS is not sustainable, which first of all, is patently false; we have shown the government at many stages that OAS is sustainable in the long term. Certainly, the immigration community could improve the sustainability of old age security. That was studied by this group just last year.

Instead of focusing on minority criminal elements, the government should instead use the power of the federal government for good, by doing such things as encouraging the benefits of employing immigrants in professional spheres, encouraging employers to be proactive by making arranged employment offers and using the federal government to help businesses find quality overseas labour, not to cut costs as it appears the government is doing by offering 15% less to workers but to improve the quality of our workforce.

If we emphasized that as an immigration policy and cast out a net in the world to catch the most qualified and brilliant people from other countries, enticed them to come here and enticed employers to start giving arranged employment offers to these people, we would see great benefits to our immigrant communities. It has been shown that immigrants with arranged employment offers earn 74% more than those who do not have them. There is a systemic problem of underemployment. The problem in the immigrant community of not being able to be employed to their full potential has serious economic effects and drags on our economy, which we could improve if we took action and leadership.

The government could improve funding to language programs. My colleague from York South—Weston pointed out many of the cuts made to settlement programs. Researchers and experts in the field know that language ability is one of the key factors in the full employability of permanent residents. If we improved funding to language programs offered by the provinces and gave guarantees and benchmarking, we would see net improvements. We have seen that the government is willing to offer piecemeal, half measures of giving loans to professionals wishing to improve their credentials in Canada. We believe the government is not doing enough to recognize fully the contributions that professionals trained abroad could offer to our country.

The Conservatives have talked a lot about this, but instead of focusing on this problem of recognizing foreign credentials, they choose to make these few bad apples a priority, the few criminals who have abused the system. If they are truly concerned about Canada's economy and it is truly their number one priority, as they say day in and day out, then they should look at the economic aspects of immigration, rather than the few criminals who cheat the system. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, my suspicion is that they are playing a political game and are being demagogic in their approach to immigration. I do not think their true priority is the economy. Rather, it is keeping their base close to them.

I have had many conversations with permanent residents in my riding and in other ridings, frankly. I have talked to an engineer who was trained abroad, and he spent up to two years looking for a job in his field. After landing, he was still searching for employment in the engineering field. We know Canada needs engineers in certain sectors, yet he could not find a job. This just should not be happening.

There are 1.5 million permanent residents who could contribute to our economic success if they were allowed to do so and if the government got behind them. Unfortunately, the government's priority seems to be looking at the criminal elements of our immigration community.

In a study, Bonikowska, Green and Riddell found that immigrants have more years of education and experience than Canadian-born individuals. Bastien, Bélanger and Ledent, in their study, found that having a degree from a western country increases the chances of finding a skilled job. There are some very complex questions that arise in these findings that I think the government should begin to tackle, to dismantle, but instead it is focusing on the criminal aspects of permanent residents, as I said.

To summarize, improving the economic situation of our permanent residents may actually decrease the rates of criminality, which are already incredibly low and not a serious demographic problem.

After addressing where our true priorities should lie, let us look at this particular piece of legislation and the positive and negative aspects of it.

I would like to start with the short title of the bill, faster removal of foreign criminals.

Certainly, people who have come to Canada as tourists and commit a crime, I would have no problem calling them foreign. If they are here on a trip and commit a crime, they are “foreigners”, in common parlance. However, someone who has undergone the years necessary to come to our country as a permanent resident, has undergone all the steps to acquire permanent residency, I would say is not a person who is foreign to us. I would never characterize such a person as a foreigner. Therefore, first of all, I take issue with the short title of the bill.

Someone who has been here for 20 years, does not take citizenship and screws up would be treated the same as someone who has been here for just one month. There is no discretion in the bill to differentiate these two individuals. I would be very uncomfortable treating these two people in the same fashion. That is something, if it comes up in committee, that I would urge the government side to tighten.

I do not think most Canadians would call somebody who has been here for 20 years a foreigner. I personally never use the term and I am uncomfortable with it. When I lived overseas, I was uncomfortable being called a foreigner. It immediately sets a distinction between somebody who belongs in the country and somebody who does not.

In the proposed section 22.1, the government's amendment would allow the minister to prevent someone from becoming a temporary resident if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations. That statement is much too vague. The English version of the bill uses “public policy” and the French version uses “intérêt public”. Those are not at all the same. There are nuances between the two. That statement is much too vague.

Legislators from all parties often base their decisions on morality. We often see in the immigration system that children are judged based on offences committed by their parents. We can find many examples in many moral systems where judging children for their parents' crimes is not a fair way of doing things.

It worries me that this bill gives the minister a new discretionary power to grant an exemption for a family member of a foreigner deemed inadmissible.

At the request of the individual or on the initiative of the minister, the minister may ignore the inadmissibility of a family member of someone who is inadmissible for reasons of security, human rights or international law violations, or organized crime, if he is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.

National interest requires the minister to specifically take into account national security and public safety. Why not completely remove the section that concerns the children of the guilty party instead of giving the minister a discretionary power? Instead of giving the minister a discretionary power, the bill could state that children will not be found guilty like their parents.

What I agree with is that serious, violent criminals and war criminals should not receive a safe haven in Canada. That is why we are supporting the bill in principle at second reading. The principle of the bill is not misplaced, but it needs serious improvements.

Likewise, we believe that the priority should be placed on bettering the condition of the vast majority of law-abiding immigrants rather than targeting the tiny minority of law breakers. Maybe improving the condition of permanent residents would also have the effect of lessening the incidents of criminal activity, which is already very low, as I mentioned before.

We will be voting in support of this bill at second reading in order to clean up the sloppy elements of this obtusely written bill, because even though Maclean's may have named him the hardest working minister, something I do not deny, it obviously does not read his legislation and may confuse press conferences with hard work. Perhaps the minister should spend more time on the legislation and less time on the media prep for it.

Like the association of police chiefs, we think we need to close the loopholes in immigration legislation, and we support the principle of the bill. However, we believe the bill needs tightening up in committee.

In addition to the association of police chiefs, here are other validators of our position.

Mario Bellissimo, lawyer and executive member of the Canadian Bar Association, is one of the nation's top lawyers and part of an immigrant community that has often been tarred with the criminal epithet. He said referring to permanent residents as foreigners is misleading.

They are casting the net too wide... People make one mistake—even if it's a non-violent crime—they will be removed.

Furthermore, he thinks the bill reflects the government's lack of confidence in the immigration tribunal and the Canadian judiciary. We believe in the power of the Canadian judiciary and the tribunals to take care of these cases and to offer fair judgment. We do not believe that the minister necessarily needs discretionary powers.

As a member of Parliament, I personally help my constituents with the immigration process, but I have never once gone to the immigration minister to lobby a case that has already been dealt with by the judiciary and the tribunals. I simply have trust in the system. I believe in that system and I believe it needs support and leadership. However, taking the discretionary element away from the tribunals and judiciaries and giving it to the minister is not the right way to go.

In terms of dealing with violent criminals and war criminals, we certainly agree with the approach of the government. That is why we would support this bill in principle at second reading, to give the government time to do its homework and tighten up the bill.

Just as the tuna canners of old created dolphin-friendly tuna, we hope the government will make this legislation permanent resident friendly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what I thought was a good question. I followed it up and suggested that the minister might even want to take note of it and possibly respond to it. I then asked a question of a New Democratic member, because we have not seen Conservative members asking questions or making presentations on Bill C-43. It is an important question and for whatever reason the minister has not been successful in answering it. I posed the question in some of the briefings that I received and again I did not receive an answer.

The question in essence goes back to the whole issue of a visitor's visa. Canadian Immigration officers around the world have the responsibility of deciding and distributing visitor visas to individuals who want to come to Canada for a visit. Now one of the requirements is that If a family member wants to come to Canada and another member of that family has been part of an organized gang, that person will be disqualified from coming to Canada.

Therefore, the question that I think stands to reason is this. Are immigration officers going to have the additional responsibility of reviewing this legislation and if implemented, and I have no doubt it will be, are significant resources going to be added to the immigration offices around the world? Is that not a fair question? Should the minister not answer that question before the bill goes to committee?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

That is a fair question to ask, Mr. Speaker. The backlog faced by these officers is incredible. The whole system is glutted up right now.

I have mentioned for hon. members that our immigration system, our permanent residents and our economy are all interlinked. By improving our immigration system, we can also improve our economy. By looking at the links between these things, by decreasing the backlog, by making legislation that would make the system run more smoothly rather than focusing on the few bad apples as the government has done, we could improve our economy. If we focus on the positive aspects of our permanent residents, we could make economic improvements for our country.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his speech. Like him, I am of course worried about how immigrants have been demonized over the past few months. These people are being singled out and labelled as fraudsters who have come to exploit the system. Not only do I find that kind of discourse appalling, but it also stigmatizes part of our population.

I would like to come back to the minister's discretionary powers. We should point out that it is not clear that more discretion should be given to the minister. We do not believe that these powers will make the process any more equitable or fair. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know from first-hand experience that this government demonizes immigration. I am married to a Canadian citizen, but at one time, she was a permanent resident. I saw the entire process that she had to go through to become a Canadian citizen. I would like to paint a clear picture for Canadians: it is not easy to become a Canadian citizen. Many of my friends told me that, since I was Canadian, the fact that I married a foreigner would automatically make her a Canadian citizen. That is not how it works.

Instead of giving powers to the minister, we could improve the immigration system overall, which will not happen if we demonize immigrants. The government needs to show some leadership and introduce some smart initiatives in order to improve the entire immigration system.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, in which he raised some very important points.

We could all benefit from the human potential that newcomers bring to Canada, either with their personal characteristics or through their varied personal and professional experiences. My colleague described all this quite clearly in his speech.

In his view, how could we make it possible for all of Canadian society to benefit from the arrival of these newcomers?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, underemployment among immigrants is a very serious problem, and there is a cost associated with it. Immigrants who have difficulty finding a job cost Canada $5.9 billion per year.

We all know a taxi driver with a medical or law degree. We have all met people who were professionals in their home country, but who work here in Canada as taxi drivers or as clerks at Tim Hortons or McDonald's. They are underemployed by our society.

After trying to improve this situation over the past six years, the Conservatives set up a modest loan program for professionals, but this is not enough. This issue must be taken seriously and concrete steps must be taken. The problem cannot be solved just by throwing money at it. We must provide funding for language programs and other similar courses, but we also have to change the mentality of Canadians. Programs that help Canadians appreciate immigrants are needed.

By playing political games, the Conservative Party is demonizing our immigrants; what the Conservatives should do is tell Canadians that immigrants can contribute even more to our society and that they can help our economy grow.

Instead of doing this, the government would rather criminalize immigrants and give Canadians the idea that immigrants are criminals.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague if he would agree with me that while some of what is in the bill is welcome in that it prevents an abuse of the system, the overall push by the Conservative government is in the wrong direction.

In fact, there are many bigger problems with our immigration system that need attention long before this does and we should see from the government ways to fix the length of time it takes to reunite families, the length of time it takes for people to become Canadian citizens and the irrationality of some of the deportation systems that exist. Would he agree with me on that?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree. When we make very concrete proposals, proposals that make good sense, the Conservatives start name-throwing at us. At one point, the Minister of Immigration characterized me as an anarchist, for instance, and said that I keep company with anarchists, even though I stand in this place, which obviously is not a den of anarchists at all.

I am also proud to say that I have read the text of Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Bookchin and that I have sympathies with some of these philosophers. I am not shy of the fact that I have read these books and I would much rather be someone who has read these thinkers than somebody who listens to the Paul Fromms and Doug Christies of the world.

When the minister claims things like the Canadian public wants the Sun Sea to be kept from our shores and others like that prevented, I wonder if the Canadians he is talking about are the Paul Fromms and the Doug Christies of Canada.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will share my time with my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

On June 20, 2012, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism held a press conference to introduce Bill C-43, which has some provisions for the faster removal of foreign criminals to their country of origin.

This bill would allow for the faster deportation of foreigners and permanent residents who are convicted of a serious crime in Canada or abroad, and it would refuse them access to the Immigration Appeal Division. To that end, the bill redefines “serious criminality” as being any crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months, instead of the period of two years that is currently found in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Furthermore, with Bill C-43, the government is asking this House to once again grant increased and unlimited discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, including the power to agree or refuse to grant temporary resident status to an individual for a maximum period of 36 months based on public policy considerations, without specifying or defining “public policy”.

Finally, Bill C-43 provides for imposing additional, more stringent conditions with regard to permanent residence for foreign nationals who are deemed inadmissible on security grounds. It also proposes eliminating the power granted to the minister to review a humanitarian application from a foreign national who is inadmissible to Canada when there is reason to believe that he has been involved in the crimes described in section 34 and subsequent sections of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The security of Canadians has always been and is still a priority for New Democrats. Without handing the government a blank cheque, the NDP believes it is possible to work with the government to prevent foreign nationals who have been involved in serious crimes from using stalling tactics successfully to delay their deportation from Canada.

However, because Canada enforces the rule of law, the NDP would like to remind this House that measures to enforce our legislation must never violate the principle of the rule of law, the national obligations entered into by Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights agreements. Finally, measures to enforce our legislation must not violate the principles of fundamental justice when they involve the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

In a number of cases in which the government has been unsuccessful, our courts have consistently reiterated the importance, in the words of Justice Zinn of the Federal Court, of “the balancing necessary in a constitutional democracy that follows the rule of law.” They have repeatedly held that foreign nationals on Canadian territory have the right to claim the legal and judicial guarantees available under our legislation. The Singh decision, handed down by our Supreme Court, illustrates this principle.

In that case, the Supreme Court informed the government that asylum seekers who are in Canada are entitled to fundamental justice when their normal or accelerated deportation to another country means they are likely to be tortured or exposed to threats to their life, their freedom or their safety. In another case, the Supreme Court held that, in a democracy, not every response is available.

Unfortunately, when judges hand down decisions concerning asylum seekers, decisions that frustrate the Conservatives' political imperatives, they are subject to virulent attacks by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who accuses them, as he did on February 11, 2011, of acting on a whim, or perhaps in a fit of misguided magnanimity. It is unacceptable to question the independence of our judges when they refuse to facilitate the achievement of the Conservatives' political aims or when they refuse to base their decisions on elements other than legal, justice and equity considerations.

In his speech, the minister complained about judges who, in his view, have been preventing him from deporting a foreign criminal for six years. He publicly discredited the guardian of the law and the rule of law, that is, the judiciary, by suspecting Canadian judges of frequently handing down prison terms of less than two years for the sole purpose of blocking the criminal's rapid deportation.

The minister also attacks Canadian judges every time they reverse or overturn the careful decisions he says are made by the highly trained public servants on administrative tribunals and even other judges.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism's criticisms of Canadian judges lead us to believe that, for the Conservatives, decisions regarding the removal of foreign criminals must be made without the possibility of appeal regardless of who makes the decision and the irregularities involved. For the Conservatives, judges who rule on cases involving the removal of foreign criminals must make their decisions based on the Conservatives' political and ideological imperatives rather than on the rule of law. That is unacceptable.

Such a vision of justice is not that of a country in which the rule of law prevails and where there is a permanent separation of power among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary in order to prevent abuse and maintain constitutional order. The lord that Justice Zinn cites found this tension to be acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. Lord Woolf concludes by saying that the tension is a necessary consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

As set out in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada is founded on the rule of law. According to Justice Zinn: “The rule of law provides that the Government and all who exercise power as a part of the Government are bound to exercise that power in compliance with existing laws.”

The courts are the institutions that the Constitution charged with ensuring that the government's decisions, including decisions regarding the removal of foreign criminals, are being made in compliance with the existing laws.

While ensuring that the safety of Canadians is not jeopardized, the NDP is reaffirming its concern and its willingness to place more emphasis on improving the equality and speed of the immigration system for the majority of people who have not committed any crimes and who follow the rules.

Clearly, there is a need to protect the integrity of our immigration system. This is especially true since many workers in the area of refugee rights, in particular members of the Canadian Council for Refugees, have been calling for a reform of the system for many years.

The flaws in our immigration system are well known. However, unfortunately, the Conservatives are using a small number of high profile cases—usually involving permanent residents who were charged with serious crimes and then used the appeal process to delay their deportation—to justify the need to have a faster process for deporting foreign criminals who are living in Canada. The minister's office describes the bill as tough but fair, and repeats that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit any crimes.

The current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains clear provisions that enable law enforcement authorities to be tough on criminals who try to abuse our immigration system. For example, it sets out that foreigners found guilty of crimes must be deported from Canada immediately, and it recognizes the detention authority of officials.

Officials may detain individuals without a warrant and arrest individuals who cannot produce identification.

Furthermore, there are more categories of people who are inadmissible to Canada than under the previous Immigration Act of 1985. Under the IRPA, foreigners may be deemed inadmissible for a number of reasons, including under section 34, for being a danger to security, section 35, for jeopardizing human rights, section 36, for acts of serious criminality or, section 37, for being involved in organized crime, section 40, for misrepresentation, and for terrorist acts.

Under section 52 of the act, individuals facing a deportation order must leave Canada immediately and never return.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act individuals cannot appeal a removal order for jeopardizing security, for human or international human rights violations, or for organized criminality. The Act denies them the right to have the decision reviewed. Smugglers are subject to particularly deterrent sentences.

Instead of making the necessary corrections to make their department run smoothly, the Conservatives are trying to circumvent all control, even the control of judges.

We demand that the individuals affected have the opportunity to go before a judge to contest expedited removals order concerning them.

The application of removal measures must respect the balance between the need to safeguard Canadians and national and international human rights obligations. A measure—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has expired.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister brought in this legislation and introduced it to Canadians for the first time back in June, in the dying days of the session, he provided the top five reasons for a fast removal of foreign criminals. We do have a difficult time with why he would call them foreigners, as permanent residents, but that is another issue. In that backgrounder, he listed five individuals. I am sure the member has likely seen the five individuals. There is very little doubt about the problems they have caused in Canadian society.

When we in the Liberal Party see the very character of these types of individuals, we, too, are concerned. We do not want to see individuals of this nature taking advantage of their residency and we see the value of deporting them in a timely fashion? However, would the member agree that this legislation, amended properly, would be able to deal with these type of individuals and that the government needs to be open-minded in approaching committee stage and hopefully making the necessary amendments?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Clearly, it is absolutely crucial that we be able to deport criminals like that. The discourse we have been engaging in so far demonstrates how much we want to debate the substance and form of this bill, and we sincerely hope that the amendments we would like to make to this bill will be heard in committee.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague. We very much appreciated her enthusiasm.

She gave a very compelling example of the link that is sometimes made between immigration and crime in the collective unconscious. I wonder if she could expand on her thoughts on the consequences this can have?

In practice, the actions of a very small minority, just a few individuals who are serious criminals, reflect on the entire community to which they belong, and that is extremely unfortunate for the rest of the community.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, attempting to stigmatize people, immigrant communities in this case, is dangerous and uncalled for. People who hear those kinds of messages quickly begin stereotyping others. They forget how critically important it is to our country, a land of immigrants, to bring in skilled people who want to settle in Canada. They want to bring their skills and their ingenuity and participate in our country's economic development.

In a way, this approach covers up that aspect and emphasizes only divisive issues, focusing only on stories that play up the dark side of the situation. We would do better to put more effort into family reunification and reducing the length of time that takes. Economically, we would be better off doing more to support the integration of skilled people who end up spending a year or two or even more looking for work in our society.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning and afternoon, I listened closely to my colleagues' remarks on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I want to make one thing clear. This bill would affect a very small percentage of permanent residents: those who abuse our immigration system. During this debate, my Conservative colleagues referred to some extreme cases to support their argument. That was a diversionary tactic because the vast majority of new immigrants commit no crimes and follow the rules.

My constituents want the government to focus on improving the immigration system to make it faster and fairer, something this government has failed to do since coming to power.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading so that the committee can take a closer look at it. However, as we have seen during today's debate, my caucus has some major reservations when it comes to this bill.

Before I say more about the bill, I would like to reiterate that it is one aspect of this government's piecemeal approach to immigration. Earlier this session, the government introduced Bill C-31, which, as we know, creates two classes of refugees and completely undermines refugees' rights.

You will recall that this government also reduced refugee health care services, which means that many of them will not have access to the health services they need. Is that the best way to treat people who often are penniless and have been traumatized? I think not.

Many doctors, organizations and groups of experts, including the Canadian Paediatric Society, oppose the proposed changes that will limit access to primary and preventative health care for some of the most vulnerable children and adolescents in Canada. These changes deprive a large number of children of treatments or doctor's visits if their parents do not have money to pay for the health services and medications. This is beneath a civilized country such as Canada. We must take care of our refugees.

When I travel abroad, I am very proud to wear the Canadian flag. Why? I am proud because, to other countries, Canada represents a model of diplomacy, a fair country, a humanitarian country where people are treated with dignity and fairness, no matter where they come from. However, this Prime Minister's Conservatives are transforming this country by dismantling, among other things, our immigration system.

Among other things, this bill takes away the minister's responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances. At present, the minister is required, at the request of a foreign national, to examine the humanitarian circumstances of the foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international human rights violations, or organized criminality. If the minister deems it is justified, an exemption for humanitarian reasons may be granted, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected. Unfortunately, this will no longer be the case if the bill is passed.

In addition to undermining our humanitarian reputation, the Conservatives are promoting the mentality of “them against us”. However, in our communities, the line between them and us is not black and white. With this bill, we run the risk of removing people who arrived at a very young age with their parents, have spent their lives in Canada, and cannot call anywhere else their home. They may not be Canadian citizens, but these people have contributed to our communities, have paid their taxes and are part of our society.

This Conservative government's approach is simply to deport people. It is like discarding these people without any concern for their well-being.

I would like to read some comments from Ahmed Hussen, the president of the Canadian Somali Congress, who thinks that the new bill will result in a huge increase in the number of young male immigrants who are deported without appeal:

The net will be cast wider and it will capture even more people. One big mistake on the part of these young men could see them sent to a dangerous place they know nothing about.

He also said:

For the people that are likely to be captured by this new law, we feel that a good number of them are first-time offenders who, if given a chance, would most likely reform and change their behaviour.

Why does this government not concentrate its efforts on increasing front-line immigration services? Why is the Conservative government eliminating the jobs of public servants who process immigration applications? Why is the government refusing to take action to facilitate family reunification? Instead of cutting services for Canadians, this government should give our immigration system the tools it needs to function.

Now let us talk about Bill C-43, which we are debating right now. There are two aspects of the bill that concern me. First, this bill puts even more powers into the hands of the minister, giving him authority over the admissibility of applicants for temporary residence. The minister can declare that a foreigner is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. This creates a very dangerous grey area. What constitutes public policy? That is not clear in this bill.

The Conservatives are already wary of newcomers, and they have a tendency towards repression, so I am not sure we should be giving more discretionary powers to the government, and to this Conservative government in particular.

My other concern about this bill is that it changes the definition of “serious criminality” with respect to appealing a determination of inadmissibility. In the past, a conviction in Canada that carried a sentence of two or more years would lead to the automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I can give some examples. If this bill passes, we could deport people who have six marijuana plants, for example, since they could be subject to a six-month sentence. These are not people who have committed violent or serious crimes and who deserve to be punished.

This bill also targets people with mental illness, who are already overrepresented in our justice system. Many individuals have spoken out against this bill because of that. John Nash, an immigration and refugee lawyer with South Ottawa Community Legal Services, said that these changes will affect many people with psychiatric problems. He said that many people with mental illness end up in the criminal justice system. Those people could be deported too.

Instead of focusing on job creation, the Conservatives are attacking the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of focusing on job creation, the Conservatives are attacking unemployed workers by forcing employment insurance beneficiaries to accept jobs that they are overqualified for and that do not pay as well as their previous jobs. Instead of doing something about climate change, this government has its head in the sand, which will hurt future generations. Instead of improving our immigration system to deal with applications quickly, the government is portraying all immigrants as criminals.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient legal system that can deport serious criminals who are not citizens. However, the Conservatives' proposed solutions are not balanced and could have devastating consequences in addition to politicizing our immigration system.

Our immigration system is broken. Just read the Auditor General of Canada's reports, which show that Canadians are waiting longer to bring their relatives to Canada and that lineups are getting longer.

I hope that once we are together in committee, my Conservative colleagues will take the NDP's concerns regarding Bill C-43 into account and accept our proposals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus has expressed a great deal of concern regarding that particular minister desiring more and more power. Examples of that include the minister deciding what countries are safe countries even though it was recommended that it be an advisory panel of human rights experts that decide. That would have been a better way to hold the minister in check. Also, the minister took on the responsibility of determining who or what grouping of two or more individuals is to be deemed as an irregular. Today we have legislation before us with the minister saying that he wants to be able to deny individuals the ability to come to Canada on a temporary visa.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the power grab that the minister seems to be fixated on. Does she believe that there is a need to make some changes to hold the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism more in check for his actions?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very good point. We are fortunate to live in a country with some of the best courts in the world.

I have to wonder why the government is undermining the judicial process by putting more arbitrary power in the minister's hands. Canada has very good courts and should make use of them.

Many people in my riding have come to my office to try to obtain visas so their loved ones can attend baptisms, weddings and funerals, but they cannot obtain them.

Instead of attacking scapegoats, the government should be addressing the immediate problems facing Canadians.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, further to that point, the last time the minister wanted to weigh in on the immigration-refugee issue he wrote some regulations on the back of an envelope and suddenly thousands of refugees lost their federal health coverage while they were waiting for status in Canada, which was an outrage across the country. Municipalities and doctors were asking what was happening with the government. This is not what our country stands for.

Today we are dealing with a different issue but it is the same concern. Are we really going to entrust in the office of one minister a very complex file, a file for which the minister and others in the government do not seem up to the task?

I would ask my hon. colleague to give a little more context as to why, for example, families in various immigrant communities in our country would have cause for concern over the bill.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill does in fact harm Canadian families and families in our communities.

This bill could force young people or others who have spent their entire lives in Canada to go to a foreign country that is unknown to them, simply because they committed a crime that calls for a six-month jail sentence.

This bill is step backward in terms of humanitarianism. It does not treat people like individuals who have rights and dignity; it treats them like criminals.

It is not the NDP way to treat newcomers or people who live in our country as though they were criminals.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a brief question and a brief answer.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean has the floor.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

My colleague spoke about cuts. Does she not think that there is a contradiction between, on the one hand, making cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency and, on the other, proposing a bill that makes more work, which means doing even more with even fewer employees?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, by cutting the budget of these organizations, the government is reducing the personnel of these organizations that offer front-line services. These are people who process immigration requests. They work in the front line and can be part of the solution. But instead of giving these organizations the tools they need, this Conservative government continues to prevent them from fulfilling their mandate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières to resume debate, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt at 6:30 p.m., at the end of government orders for today.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has the floor.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in this discussion on Bill C-43. I say mixed feelings because there is definitely an issue here worth discussing and finding a solution to, but this is no way to approach it.

I am here, speaking in the House, because of the voters of Trois-Rivières. We can all agree that Trois-Rivières is not exactly an immigration gateway to Canada. Imagine my surprise in the weeks following my election when I saw the plurality of the cultural communities in Trois-Rivières, when I spoke with the people of those communities and recognized the wealth of diversity. I also recognized a need to listen to one another, in order to try to understand each other, given our respective cultural baggage.

I realized that there should be an individualized approach to immigration for each of the people that I met with in my riding office. There is no doubt that, of all the files that I have dealt with in Trois-Rivières since I was elected, those related to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have been the most complex. It seems that this goes without saying, given the nature of the subject at hand. As a result, I have a very hard time when someone tries to present a simple or even simplistic solution to a complex problem involving immigration.

Thus, to support Bill C-43 as it stands would require me to turn my back on core values that I cannot deny. It is also asking me to take a great leap of faith to vote to send this bill to committee in the hopes that major amendments will be made to it, particularly given the number of amendments that were accepted in the case of a bill as large and important as Bill C-38. If the past is any indication, there is not much there to reassure me.

However, with all due respect for parliamentarianism, I must still place some hope in committee work and in the fact that the committee could considerably improve a bill that contains certain elements that I think are essential and could do away with others that are simply not consistent with the values held by most Canadians.

For the sake of time, I will start with my biggest concern. If I have any time left, I will end with the points on which both sides of the House could come to an agreement. I hope that this approach will be constructive and will help to set the tone for the work that members of this committee will do.

My first concern is that the vision of the Conservatives' bill is completely black and white. Bill C-43 is one of many Conservative bills that, as I said earlier, proposes a simple solution to a complex problem. With regard to the bill we are discussing this afternoon, there seem to be good people and bad people but very rarely good people who have given in to a moment of weakness and are not necessarily destined for a life of crime, but whom the Conservatives want to force to leave the country.

The picture before us is, once again, presented only in black and white, with almost no shades of grey. Yet it is difficult to describe reality without using all shades of grey. We simply have to think back to black and white television, for those who are my age, anyway. If there had been no shades of grey, we would not have seen much of anything. Very few things, particularly concerning immigration, correspond to this dualistic view of the world. Any search for consensus must look at solutions that take into account a broader range of shades of grey, which will allow us to consider every possible situation.

Bill C-43 also presents a risk of considerable abuse.

Let us first talk about the powers that would be granted to the minister. I must point out that this is not a question of examining the personality of the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, but rather of the powers that could be exercised by any individual who is in charge of that rather complex department.

Usually, in famous western movies, there are good guys and bad guys, and there is usually a sheriff to mediate the conflict. Well, in this case, it seems that the sheriff is none other than the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. His discretionary power will increase, while the criteria used to achieve justice seem to be decreasing.

The minister would thus have the authority needed to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. That means that the minister could rule that the foreign national is inadmissible for up to 36 months, if he believes that it is in the public interest.

I will digress for a moment. First, the verb “to believe” introduces a grey area or value judgment. It is hard to imagine that the verb to believe refers to objective criteria. The belief might vary from one minister to the next. We know that cabinet shuffles, even changes in government, are legion in our democratic system.

Bill C-43 does not define public interest. What is really in the public interest and allows the minister to determine that it would be best to deport a person?

What is more, Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility, even the obligation, to examine the humanitarian circumstances of the foreign national who is deemed inadmissible for security reasons. That again is a grey area and is difficult to define.

I believe that the minister in charge of such a department must be the instance of last resort. He must rise above the fray and not be a part of the decision-making machine, and not have a penchant for ideology.

Furthermore, the bill changes the definition of what is considered to be “serious criminality”. This will be a particularly important matter to be debated in committee. What corresponds to the NDP or Conservative view of what we might term “serious criminality”, and will also garner the broadest consensus among Canadians when it is time to describe and judge what constitutes “serious criminality”?

Previously, a serious criminal was someone given a sentence of two or more years, which was the logical connection to the judge's reasoning when judging a crime. If a crime was deemed to be punishable with a sentence of two years or more, the criterion of “serious criminality” was met.

By changing this criterion from two years or more to six months or more, will judges be asked to change how they interpret the law and make their rulings? Absolutely not. It means that we are opening the door to including all sorts of crimes that, under the old law, would not have been viewed as “serious criminality” and that detractors would consider to be grounds for deportation.

We can well imagine that judges will not change their rulings and that a much larger number of cases may find their way into the new process set out by Bill C-43.

What about the right to an appeal process? It is no longer an option, even for someone given a six-month sentence for a crime that most Canadians would not consider a real threat to public safety.

For example, imagine an immigrant with an incurable illness that causes unbearable pain. He decides to seek relief by discreetly growing five or six pot plants at home. He is not selling drugs. While some parliamentarians are considering the possibility of legalizing marijuana, for just such a situation, that person could be found guilty of a serious crime and be deported to a country that he does not know well enough culturally to live in safely and soundly. He may have come to Canada as a child. Canada could be his only refuge and ours the only culture he has ever known.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières will have nine minutes to speak when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in relation to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, legislation which will impact on the lives of many of my constituents in Mount Royal and which will also have an important impact on the Canadian immigration system overall.

In presenting the bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration offered several justifications for the bill, some of which appear reasonable at first glance in their response to admittedly legislative gaps and policy concerns. In this regard the minister began by noting that the bill would “narrow the breadth of the inadmissibility provision for espionage to focus on activities carried out against Canada or that are contrary to the interests of Canada”.

He then continued, noting that the bill “would permit the temporary entry of persons with an inadmissible family member” before adding that the legislation also would provide “express authority for the Minister of Public Safety to grant ministerial relief on the minister's own initiative” and thus would as a whole “strengthen the integrity of the system and protect the safety of Canadians”.

At first glance, all of these are supportable notions. We do not want to exclude those who spied or worked on behalf of allies. We do not want to deny someone entry if he or she is innocent of any wrongdoing but have an inadmissible family member. Nor do we want any convoluted or unclear process for ministerial decision making in this regard. Yet the bill goes above and beyond these simple and seemingly agreeable propositions. Indeed, if the bill only did these three things, it would perhaps even enjoy the unanimous support of the House.

However, the legislation goes beyond this, granting powers to ministers in ways that may breach the charter and changing some of the protections currently afforded by both domestic and international law. In particular, the minister's outline of the two major changes contained in Bill C-43 warrant individualized attention and critique from a juridical perspective. I will seek to organize my remarks around the same points that the minister adduces in support of these changes.

First, the minister noted that “the bill will create a new authority for the Minister of Citizenship who will be able to deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals for up to three years based on public policy considerations”. The problem is that there are no criteria respecting what are public policy considerations. What factors will be considered by the minister? When will the determination be made in the application process? What checks are in place to ensure this provision is neither misused nor abused. Indeed the minister himself acknowledged the delicacy, to use his own term, of this authority and invited colleagues and members of the opposition to suggest such criteria either by way of regulation, amendment, or otherwise support content into this rather vague and elastic term.

As a matter of fundamental fairness, persons must be informed of the case to meet and be allowed to present evidence in their favour. By allowing determination on unknown allegations, with a questionable if not elastic standard, namely that of public policy considerations, we are investing the minister with an authority that could end up being discriminatory and otherwise arbitrary and capricious in its application.

Simply because the minister contends that the power would be used sparingly does not mean that it passes constitutional muster. There must be some check, some appeal, some review of the exercise of authority and I am hopeful at committee this section may be amended, as the minister himself acknowledged and invited such amendment, to at least require notice to applicants of the considerations at issue when this section is invoked.

The second change held out by the minister is that “the bill seeks to lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months”.

It is troubling enough that the government speaks of anything netting longer than a six month sentence as “serious criminality”, let alone the denial of remedial relief in this regard. One who obtains a sentence for making a recording in a movie theatre, an offence which can net a two year sentence under section 432 of the Criminal Code, is hardly one who should be denied access to an appeal of a decision that he or she should be put immediately on a plane back to another country, one where the person may not have been to in years, where the person may have no ties, simply because the minister has ordered the person deported.

In this regard, one must note the title of the bill, which is as prejudicial as it is presumptive and where the very title of the legislation is intended to be probative of the raison d'être of the legislation itself. I am speaking to the reference to swift departure of foreign criminals act.

This is not unlike the approach that was taken with respect to the Safe Streets Act. A title does not in and of itself validate legislation. By characterizing the legislation as being the “faster removal of foreign criminals act”, it does not make it necessarily pass constitutional muster. A title does not make constitutionally suspect legislation valid nor does it transform bad policy into good policy.

The people affected by this bill are permanent residents of our country and newcomers. They came here legally after going through a process that requires, among other things, a criminal background check.

An entire community will be affected by these measures, and it is unacceptable to characterize that community the way this bill does and the way the minister did during his presentation to the House.

New immigrants to Canada are active members of their society. They pay taxes and contribute positively to the country's economy. They must be treated fairly and with respect. Indeed, immigrants, as all members of the House know, play an extremely important role in our country's history. They are an integral part of our cherished multicultural mosaic. On a personal note, I am extremely proud to be able to represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country.

Simply put, the government has not presented the House with any evidence of a higher level of criminality among immigrants to Canada as compared to citizens. Nor has it presented evidence that somehow a sentence of six months plus a day is in and of itself “serious criminality”.

While my colleagues have listed some of the offences for which one might get a sentence of longer than six months, offences which a reasonable person would hardly view as serious, the bigger problem is that the assumption is that a sentence necessarily reflects severity. In a period when the government is intent on ushering in new and longer mandatory minimum sentences, it can hardly be said in the Canadian justice system that there is necessarily a correlation between the length of a sentence imposed by a judge and the severity, let alone the evil of the act itself.

There is a related note here that must be made with regard to sentencing. The minister noted:

—we have noticed across the country that courts are often using two years less a day to penalize individuals for their crime. At the same time it obviously changes the aspect of that criminal conviction, because it is less than two years, and therefore the scope of the current legislation does not allow us to pursue those individuals for the purpose of getting them out of the country and deporting them.

The suggestion is that judges somehow sentence offenders to two years less a day so that one would not be deported under the current statutory scheme and that it is in fact the intention of the judiciary itself in these regards. However, the truth of the matter is that two years is a dividing line between offences served in provincial versus federal institutions.

In other words, a judge is not sentencing someone to two years less a day because he or she feels the offender should not be deported. That is not something for the judiciary to consider in a criminal case. Rather the two years less a day sentence allows for the criminal to be incarcerated in a provincial rather than a federal penitentiary.

Indeed, in this regard I would invite the government to submit any evidence it has that any judge has ever taken into account deportation risk in assessing the sentences. It is not a factor under the Criminal Code and surely the government would appeal such a verdict should it have been handed down in that manner. It is simply irresponsible to impute to the judiciary a motive in sentencing where there is no evidence in fact or in law that it has indeed adopted this as its modus operandi.

Returning to the bill before us, the premise is that we must remove foreign criminals faster. Yet, as I noted, the foreign criminals at issue here are really permanent residents and new Canadians. Their crimes may not be all that serious. If the government seeks to ascribe to them the level of “serious criminality”, they would be deprived of a remedy to challenge the summary deportations themselves.

When we think of serious criminality, we think of murder, sexual assault and other violent acts. I do not dispute that there are some committing these despicable acts who may be immigrants to Canada, as well as citizens committing such crime. However, the most serious of all crimes, mainly war crimes, crimes against humanity, let alone that unspeakable crime of genocide, is not something we see addressed in this proposed statute. I believe this point warrants some discussion in this matter.

In this regard, may I turn my attention to the war crimes and crimes against humanity program.

Since its inception in 1997, the war crimes program has provided a means of prosecuting international crimes domestically, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which underpins our war crimes legislation and the implementation of our international treaty obligations.

In doing so, Canada sends a powerful message that not only will our country not serve as a base or sanctuary for war criminals but such war criminals are on notice that they will enjoy neither immunity nor impunity for their international criminality, which transcends borders and jurisdictions.

It is regrettable that the funding for this program has not changed since its inception in 1997. At a time when the government is talking about getting tough on foreign criminals, it is not, regrettably, addressing the problem of foreign war criminals here in Canada and ensuring that they are brought to justice here in Canada.

Rather, we see the problem with the bill now magnified in this regard to how the government treats war criminals, namely through their wholesale deportation. Yet this is not an appropriate alternative to domestic prosecution for war criminals, for they may never face justice in their home countries. Indeed, their home governments may provide protection from prosecution and they may even be rewarded for their criminality. It is our responsibility, both domestically and under international law, to break this cycle of impunity.

At a time when the government purports to be concerned with foreign criminals who enter our country, should this not be the time to reinvigorate the support and funding provided for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program?

These are the real foreign criminals, not Canadian permanent residents. For all the government has claimed that the opposition is soft on crime, why are the Conservatives arguably so soft on war criminals and war crimes?

Again, the point here is that deportation and removal are not necessarily solutions to the problem at hand, and in some cases, returning someone to their country of origin may make things worse.

Another flaw of the bill is that it does not make clear the Canadian obligation, as affirmed by our courts again and again, not to deport to situations of torture or terror. Problematic as it may be to return a permanent resident to a country with which he or she may not have had any contact for years and may no longer have any ties, it is much more problematic in cases of people who came as refugees to Canada before claiming their permanent residency status.

In this regard the removal of recourse to the immigration appeal division is particularly problematic. Indeed, it should be noted that we hold specific international legal obligations under the UN Convention against Torture, to which Canada is a signatory. Article 3 of that convention states:

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

While I understand the concern and desire to limit paperwork and resources devoted to claims that will not succeed and I understand the concern that protracted levels of appeal at times burden our system, efficiency cannot replace fundamental rights, particularly those that are protected by treaty. Indeed, the rights at stake here are of the utmost, critical importance.

For permanent residents, such as those who came here as children and for whom Canada may be the only country they have ever known, the decision to return them could prove fatal. Decisions in this regard must not be made lightly, require a full and fair consideration of the facts and cannot be rushed in the interest of political expediency, nor can they ignore the very real dangers that exist.

Lest anyone question whether this is a very serious risk, look at what happened just last week in the case of Fatemeh Derakhshandeh Tosarvandan. While the Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to look at new evidence into the case of her failed refugee claim, there was a brief point where it appeared Canada would send this refugee claimant back to Iran, even though she could face death by stoning.

After repeated pleas by her lawyers and two scheduled deportations that were subsequently cancelled, officials finally notified her lawyer that they would grant her a pre-removal risk assessment.

These cases arise and it must be clear that in all circumstances that Canada, as a matter of law and policy, will not deport to torture or terror which, as the courts have also affirmed, includes deportation to the death penalty in any form.

To conclude my remarks in the time remaining, we all support the idea of creating an efficient and effective immigration process. We support what the minister has said about supporting the integrity of the process itself, but this must not come at the expense of our democratic values, our constitutional rights or international legal obligations. Our government must be open and accountable. Ministerial discretion in a democracy must be exercised with transparency, accountability, in compliance with the Constitution and not shielded by elastic and amorphous terms such as public policy considerations.

The government has yet to justify the primary legislative changes accomplished through the bill in any compelling way. Its advancement only continues to create prejudicial fallout for immigrants, and also prejudicial fallout with respect to the imputations to the judiciary of prejudicial decision-making, let alone breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am all for immigration reform. Some of the minister's reforms have been welcome. In past Parliaments I have stood with my Liberal colleagues in supporting some immigration legislation offered by the Conservatives, yet this legislation in its present form is constitutionally suspect. It will invite constitutional challenges at the taxpayers' expense as the government seeks to advance that which breaches constitutional requirements for procedural fairness on the one hand and respect for our international obligations on the other.

What is enshrined in the charter and the related duty of procedural fairness are not merely privileges. They are rights that deserve protection and promotion, and the Canadian Parliament should be at the forefront of those seeking such protection for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also a product of the family reunification provisions of the Canada immigration act. I came to this country in 1980. Back then it took about three years to process an application. I was able to get into elementary school and high school. It benefited me as a person to learn the language at an early age.

In the last 10 years under the Conservative government the wait list has grown to the point where it takes eight or nine years for someone to sponsor parents and young people to this country. I would not have benefited under the Conservative government's track record. I would not be where I am today had I not been able to come in a fairly short period of time. We have seen a freeze on parental applications and such.

Instead of vilifying newcomers to this country, should the government not be working to fix the immigration system?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can corroborate what the member said. My constituency office has one of the largest immigration practices in this country. We deal all the time with issues relating to family reunification. We deal with issues with respect to temporary visa applications and applications respecting refugee status and the like. Regrettably, whenever we have these bottlenecks, the bottlenecks end up being prejudicial to the applicants and effectively prejudicial to Canada itself, because we delay and sometimes end up even denying access to our country to those who could make an ongoing and enduring contribution to our society.

I believe the government does want to address some of these concerns that are causing these roadblocks in process and the like. The minister has attempted to do that. Regrettably, with regard to this legislation, the emphasis has been put on reforms that not only do not address those roadblocks but at the end of the day will end up breaching requirements of procedural fairness domestically and also prejudicially affect our international obligations.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, concentrates more powers in the hands of the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. Furthermore, the minister can declare a foreign national to be inadmissible for various reasons. That worries me a bit. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister is a systematic pattern in the Conservatives' bills.

Is my Liberal colleague as concerned as the NDP that this bill and others concentrate more powers in the hands of the minister?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that does worry me, and I expressed my concerns in my speech.

Not only does the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism have too much power, but so does the Minister of Public Safety. They have too much power without accountability.

I believe that the minister himself recognized that the text of the bill is problematic. He invited the opposition to propose amendments, and that is what we must do to improve the bill.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation by my hon. colleague. I would like to congratulate him for his well-thought-out arguments.

I notice that Bill C-43—he can tell me whether or not he agrees with me—moves completely away from what we should be doing. It does focus on an existing problem, but one that only concerns a minority of refugees. It seems that they want to focus on the criminals when much more needs to be done to restore balance to this immigration bill.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this shift, and whether or not he agrees with me.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree.

I think the proposals included in this bill are hurting immigrants and communities.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the changes to the act. Currently, the minister has the obligation, following a request by a foreign national, to look at the humanitarian aspects of the situation of a foreign national deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or violations of human or international rights.

However, once Bill C-43 comes into force, the minister will no longer be responsible for taking into account humanitarian grounds. Yet in many cases, when individuals make a refugee claim or apply for permanent residence, humanitarian grounds are critical.

Could the Liberal member could tell us what he thinks of the fact that the minister will no longer be responsible for considering humanitarian grounds?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I gave the example of the Iranian woman. They were prepared to deport that immigrant, regardless of the problems deportation to a country where her life was in danger would cause.

I think it is necessary to keep humanitarian grounds in Canada's immigration process, as suggested by the hon. member.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be as clear as I can.

Does the hon. member feel that, with Bill C-43, the government is using a cannon to kill a fly and that, in so doing, is completely overlooking the imbalances found in this legislation?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the government has treated some groups, such as permanent residents and immigrants, as if they posed a threat to Canadian security.

We have to consider the true scale of this issue and not frame it as a criticism of permanent residents as if they were responsible for security breaches in Canada.

That is why there must be processes in place to protect their rights. We must give them the means to defend their rights. We must not give the minister excessive power to make a decision that would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the national level or our international obligations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will share my time with the talented member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is new to the House and is doing an excellent job. She will speak second.

I will start by saying that we are at second reading of a bill and we are of course talking about the principle of the bill. The NDP supports the principle that those found guilty of a violent crime must face consequences with respect to their admissibility in Canada. In light of this principle, we could support this bill.

When this bill is referred to committee and is at third reading, we will have to point out its flaws, as my colleague from Mount Royal and our immigration critic, the member for Newton—North Delta, mentioned. We already see that there are flaws. We can support the principle, but we will have to address some of the flaws in this bill.

First and foremost, I must say that the government's record on immigration shows a huge lack of the responsibility that we should be seeing from a government.

I will give just three examples. I have been in the House now for eight years and I have seen over that eight-year period a very clear deterioration in the level of services provided to new Canadians and in the responsiveness of our immigration system.

I am proud to say that my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster is the most diverse riding in Canada. Over a hundred languages are spoken in Burnaby—New Westminster and every major faith is found in my riding. In a very small area of square kilometres, from the Fraser River through to Deer Lake, we see a diversity that goes even beyond that in other ridings, like Surrey North. I know the member of Parliament for that riding feels there is a lot of diversity there, but Burnaby—New Westminster certainly is the most diverse, with Surrey North very much up there in terms of diversity.

Back in 2004 the concerns were about delays in the system, the delays around family sponsorship and visitor's visas. The issue of temporary foreign workers had not really come to the fore because at the time there was still a very clear emphasis within the system on ensuring that Canadians, the residents and people living in the community, were going to work. Now eight years later there has been a very clear deterioration. It has happened because of cutbacks, mismanagement and the inability of the government to handle the immigration file effectively.

That is why when we see bills like this come forward, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières just mentioned, we see them as akin to a cannon going after a fly. Even though we can support the principle, we are seeing a lot of work going into expanding the powers of the minister when, under the existing powers and responsibilities of the minister and the framework of the ministry, things are clearly not working. Therefore, we see this as a political document that is being brought forward with a whole number of weaknesses. The government is not dealing with the fundamental problems that we are seeing now, particularly in regard to new Canadians in the immigration system.

Let us look at those three examples that I cited back from 2004 and where we are today. We are in a climate where over the last six years, 400,000 more Canadians joined the unemployment rolls. We have seen more and more part-time work. We have lost half a million manufacturing jobs. We have actually seen an erosion in the average family wage in Canada. The middle class is eroding every year and its losing about 2% of its purchasing power, so its wages are actually being forced down.

Even though the government likes to make up figures for some kind of job and economic record that really come from science fiction, the reality is that most of the jobs created in our growing population are part-time or temporary. We have replaced full-time family-sustaining manufacturing jobs with temporary and part-time work, and people are trying to cobble together a number of different part-time jobs to try to make ends meet.

In the midst of this, we have seen an unprecedented expansion of temporary foreign workers. These workers are brought in and are not subject to our health and safety standards. We have seen so many cases of abuse in British Columbia and right across the country. Temporary foreign workers are simply being pulled away from the health and safety standards that we have, are paid far below our Canadian standards, are given no rights and are sent home at the end of whatever contract they have. This explosion of temporary foreign workers is something that we see everywhere, whether in construction projects where these workers are housed in poor living conditions or the local Tim Hortons where they are brought in and put into very difficult conditions.

I will give an example. I know of a case where temporary foreign workers were brought in to work at a business in one particular area for a per diem. Because there was no inspection process, no oversight whatsoever, those temporary foreign workers then had to pay an extraordinary compulsory amount to their employer to sleep in a bed in a small basement at night. In other words, they became indentured servants where they were ordered to spend all of the money they earned in the day on astronomical fees for their poor living arrangements. When they tried to move out, the owner told them they would have to keep paying the hundreds of dollars they were being charged every week for their accommodation, even though they were no longer sleeping in those tiny little beds in the basement. That is just one example of the many abuses we are seeing.

Under the current government there has been a widespread explosion of temporary foreign workers being brought in with no monitoring, safety standards and oversight provided, or responsibility taken by the government. That is simply not reflective of Canadian values. That is not reflective of building the kinds of communities that we want to see. It is not reflective of Canada's tradition, wherein new Canadians come here and join our communities, bring their families, contribute and work hard, and as a result the whole community and whole country prospers. This is just one aspect of what has been a very meanspirited approach by the government not in keeping with our fundamental values.

Second is the waiting list for family sponsorships. With a pen the government has simply ripped away and cast out those who have been waiting years, sometimes for up to a decade. The government has said it is starting over with the sponsorships, but what about those hundreds of thousands of people who were waiting?

Third is the whole issue of visitor visas. It has become a daily challenge for any new Canadians who want to have their family to visit them in Canada for births, funerals, marriages and special events. Visitor visas are routinely denied for the most spurious of reasons.

What we are seeing under the government is a failure in the immigration system. The government brings forward legislation that is problematic and riddled with a series of holes and problems. A few minutes ago, my colleague from Mount Royal pointed to possible constitutional challenges.

There is a whole range of special powers given to the minister. It is very clear to us that the minister does not deserve those powers.

Though we may be in favour of the principle of the bill, it has to be reworked at committee. It has to be reworked so that it is actually in Canada's interest.

Above all, the government finally has to start coping with the fact that it is in government, and take responsibility and fix all of the problems that new Canadians are experiencing with the immigration system. It has to get to work on this. We are hoping that with pressure from the NDP, it will finally do just that.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the constituents of the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster have been well-served over the last eight years.

The member said that over the past several years there has been a deterioration in the immigration file. I wonder if he could point out what has deteriorated and what the Conservatives have done to the immigration file over the last six or seven years.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt has been a very strong representative for northern Ontario in his years in the House, which I know he will continue to be.

I talked about temporary foreign workers and the egregious striking out of those who have waited years to be sponsored to come to Canada.

I want to address the third issue, the temporary visitor visas. We are talking about Canadians who have decided to establish themselves in Canada. All they are asking for when they have a special ceremony for a happy occasion like a wedding or the birth of a child, or a sad occasion like a funeral, is to have their families, loved ones and friends overseas come to visit. Time and time again, tens of thousands of times a year, the government refuses them the opportunity of being with their families, loved ones and friends at critical moments in their lives.

What the government does every day is to treat new Canadians like second-class citizens, when it denies them the ability to be with their loved ones, even for a week. I find the government's record on immigration deplorable when we look at how it hits new Canadians every day who have decided to build a new life in Canada and who want to build that new life without being cut off from their families, friends and loved ones for the rest of their lives. That is indeed what is happening.

There have been cases where people have re-applied half a dozen times and the only reason they were refused is that they did not have a travel history to Canada. That is the only reason. How can they get a travel history to Canada if they are not allowed temporary visitor visas to be with their loved ones here in Canada?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative immigration policy focuses less on family reunification and human considerations and more on the economy. Consider their immigration policies for temporary workers, who come to the country under rather questionable conditions. What does my colleague think?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to wish the hon. member for Hochelaga a happy birthday; today is her birthday. As usual, she is spending the day working for her constituents in Hochelaga.

The hon. member just raised a very good point. Temporary workers who come to Canada do not have the same rights as Canadians when it comes to workplace health and safety, nor do they have the same standard of living and wages as other Canadians. The worst is that they make their contribution to Canada and, afterwards, they are sent home. Furthermore, the government has made it harder for families to be reunited in Canada.

This really goes against Canadian values. One of the first things we are going to do when we come to power after the election on October 19, 2015, will be to rebuild a system that this Conservative government will have ruined.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-43. As the hon. member said, this is second reading and, at second reading, members express support for a principle, an idea. It is the same, for example, as negotiating in international gatherings. This might even serve as a little lesson for the Conservatives. Initially, we agree on a principle, not on a treaty or a piece of legislation. So let us discuss a principle here.

Certainly, New Democrats recognize the importance that Canadians attach to their security. We are here to protect the security of Canadians. No one will question that, certainly not the government.

I want to work with the government to ensure that no criminal can gain any advantage from a process and that the process remains just, impartial and fair. I should point out that those words are from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I am not inventing Canadian values just for the purposes of my speech. Those are the words used to describe our justice system: just, impartial and fair.

We agree on the principle of holding criminals responsible for their actions, of finding them guilty of the crimes they have committed, and of having them suffer the consequences. But we have to reflect on the subsequent process and the values and principles associated with that process. That is precisely why we are here today. We have to ask ourselves which image we want to project, how we want society and people to perceive our system.

Bill C-43 amends a significant number of items. It is important to highlight them. I will begin by pointing out the items that are on the table for discussion. Then I will provide my opinion and make some suggestions to the government.

First, it is important to say that the bill concentrates more powers into the hands of the minister, as if he did not already have enough by virtue of all the bills he has introduced since the election of the majority government. The current minister is likely the Minister of Immigration with the most power in Canada's entire history. I would not make that claim unless I knew it to be true.

Clearly, we do not want Canadians or the rest of the world to view our system as one in which a minister can personally and subjectively determine the eligibility of a temporary resident applicant, regardless of the criteria. It is true that our image and our system influence Canadians, but I would like to make it clear to the government, which claims to be removing barriers and opening itself up to the world, that it is not just removing our economic barriers, but it is also showing the world Canada's image, our values and our principles.

As my colleague said, it is important for the government to take responsibility, to respect and show people what we have fought for for so many years. This must be preserved and cherished as a national treasure, like our national parks and our history.

I should point out that discretionary powers are not common practice in Canadian democratic traditions.

It is good for a country, for a government, to aspire—I am using the word "aspire" because I would not want to say that the government succeeded—to lead the world in terms of the economy and investment, but why not aspire to lead the world in terms of compassion, democracy, justice and equality? Why not? I have never heard my colleagues say anything about that.

I would really like them to stop eliminating these values and principles, so dear to us all, from their speeches in an effort to divide Canadians through the politics of fear. I will touch on that a little later in my speech.

I have a good example. When Conrad Black, a convicted felon who was sentenced abroad, wanted to return to Canada, the minister was quick to say that he wanted the case to be dealt with independently by independent officers. This was very clear from the beginning, and that is what the minister said. However, now he wants to decide the fate of any individual on Canadian soil. In my opinion, this is a contradiction. Once again, we see that the government wants to create different classes: friends of the Conservatives and everyone else.

The NDP wants justice and equality for everyone. Criteria that apply to one person must apply to everyone. It is not true that there are different classes of citizens, permanent residents and even newcomers to Canada.

Personally, if I could give the minister one piece of advice, it would be to spend less time organizing press conferences that paint a very negative picture of immigrants. Instead, the minister should use these policies and focus his efforts on really protecting us from criminals in our ridings, in our streets.

The minister can declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident for a maximum of 36 months if he is of the opinion that it is in the public's interest. Thus, the minister may, at any time, revoke a declaration or shorten that period or whatever.

What are the criteria? The discretionary power in question here is not defined and has no framework at all. There is also no appeal process. To whom is the minister accountable? We know how much the Conservatives love to be irresponsible. They talk about responsible ministers and ministerial responsibility. Yet, instead we see quite the opposite from the Conservative government: irresponsible ministers and ministerial irresponsibility have become the new normal in this country.

We are in favour of the principle: criminals who are found guilty must suffer the consequences. However, we are against giving the minister these discretionary powers. We support equality, democracy and justice.

We see here how different our perspectives are. Has it really come to this? Does the official opposition really have to remind the Canadian government what values Canadians hold dear?

What is so unfortunate about the Conservatives' tactic is that they are using fear and playing on the emotions of Canadians—because I know that Canadians are really very passionate people—to introduce somewhat flawed or sometimes even deeply flawed bills. I think that the Conservatives are going in a truly deplorable direction, and I am very disappointed in their lack of co-operation.

The Conservatives are using prejudices and politics of fear to force Canadians to swallow their far-right policies without saying a word. Has it really come to that? Is the role of the official opposition now to remind the government that it does not rule over its own kingdom, but that it represents Canadians? Is this the role of the opposition now? Are we really seeing these types of far-right policies in a country like Canada? I am very disappointed.

We are talking about an optional appeal process. That is absolutely ridiculous. Has it really come to that? Can the minister really decide whether someone is able to appeal or not?

I personally feel that there is a serious problem with that, especially since the bill also removes the responsibility to consider humanitarian circumstances. For example, what will happen with young children who came here at the age of one? They will be deported to a country whose language and culture they do not know and where they could even be tortured. We have obligations to comply with.

In addition, when we look at the definition of serious crime or serious criminality, we see that there is no definition. We are talking about six months or more, whereas it used to be two months or more.

I am really wondering about the Conservatives' new policies on minimum sentences. We have to think about the image we want our justice system to project. Will people have confidence in our government?

I can assure you that the NDP will never violate the values of democracy, justice and equality that Canadians cherish. We are always going to be there to represent the people.

We are not seeking power because we want to rule over our little kingdom, but rather because we want to change things for the better for Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her excellent speech.

I would like to tell hon. members something. When the bill was introduced and given first reading, we had immigrants come to our office, people who had been in our riding for some time, 10 years or less. There was panic. People thought they were going to be sent back to their countries. They thought that the current criteria were no longer in effect. This created fear. There are very few immigrants in my riding, but there are some nonetheless, some 10,000 people, if not more.

The hon. member spoke about the fear that this bill was going to provoke. I saw it in my own constituency. I saw these people come and cry in the office because they were afraid to be sent back to their country. I would like to hear her speak about that.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. Actually, this bill is intended to deport criminals who have committed offences that would be punishable under the Criminal Code by a minimum of six months in jail.

With that in mind, they do not even know if sentences of six months or more constitute serious criminality. I am a law student. I am going to get my law degree next week. The Conservatives' definition of “serious criminality” is down the drain. We are talking about fear. They use fear. We often hear the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism tell people that the NDP is going to release criminals and that their safety will be compromised if the NDP becomes the government. That is not true. In addition, immigrants, who contribute to the economy, are being treated as though they were not even Canadians.

In fact, the government is really good at dividing. There are the friends of the government and the victims. There are the criminals, women and aboriginals. The government divides people to its own advantage. Divide and conquer is really what the Conservative government is doing now. The government is telling people that they do not deserve its protection and efforts. However, it is a different story for the friends of the government.

People feel marginalized. People feel attacked. They do not even feel at home anymore. They—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We must allow time for one more question.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague was talking about the myths that the Conservatives are spreading about the NDP and our position on this bill. I would really like to make one thing clear.

The NDP recognizes the need for an effective legal system in order to deport serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens. However, the Conservative government is casting far too wide a net with Bill C-43. At the end of the day, this bill targets the majority of newcomers who obey the law and do not commit crimes. That is why the NDP is opposed to this bill.

I would also like to know whether my colleague realizes that this bill attacks the wrong people because, as I mentioned, newcomers who are good people and who obey the law are the ones who will be affected. They are living in fear.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill follows the introduction of a number of bills by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who is treating immigrants as though they were in a different class.

I would like to once again remind hon. members of the day when I was in my office and I turned on the television to CBC and saw the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism giving a press conference. I read this caption at the bottom of the screen: “3,000 fraudsters deported from Canada”.

The minister has just revoked the citizenship or permanent residence of 3,000 people who had lived in Canada, paid their taxes and contributed to our society, based on mere allegations of fraud or a failure to abide by the Conservatives' system. This shows how the minister's discretion can be dangerous for citizens. A minister must not be given such discretion.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

The debate on Bill C-43, dealing with the removal of foreign criminals, is one I am particularly interested in. This is another step in the comprehensive reform of our immigration system that the Conservatives are doing their utmost to undertake. As the stakes are high and as the decisions made in this House will have major repercussions on many people's lives, it is essential to thoroughly study the changes proposed in this bill.

Ultimately, this bill proposes to do away with the control mechanisms that allow the immigration system to respond to exceptional circumstances in a flexible way. Powers are being taken out of the system and placed into the hands of the minister, who, more than ever before, will be able to decide unilaterally what is good and what is not good for individuals and for our country.

I have to say that this trend leaves me confused in a number of ways. My first concern is with the concept of serious criminality. At the moment, as we know, someone who is not a Canadian citizen can be sent back to his country of origin if he is convicted of a crime punishable by two years or more in prison. This is intended to keep Canadians safe, while leaving some room to manoeuvre for individuals making a simple mistake. There is a good balance between compassion and public safety, in my opinion. But Bill C-43 would reduce the prison term triggering deportation from Canada from two years to six months. This would considerably broaden the categories of crimes punishable by removal from our country, pure and simple. I believe that this major change requires more thorough study.

Which crimes would henceforth be considered serious enough to justify deportation? Are there not cases in which deportation would be out of proportion to the offence? I feel that we must think about this before we act, given the dramatic consequences of deportation.

I believe that the government is trying to show its muscle here as it has done with various other bills in the past. This is their no-nonsense, tough on crime approach. But have the consequences of that approach been seriously studied?

I would like to quote the president of the Canadian Somali Congress, Ahmed Hussen. In describing the potential consequences of Bill C-43, he said that a good number of the people who are likely to be captured by this new law are first-time offenders who, if given a chance, could reform and change their behaviour.

This means that if we lower the bar from two years to six months, we could end up disproportionately punishing people who, although they made a mistake—it happens—are capable of turning things around. Where is the compassion that helped our country become what it is today? I do not see that in this bill.

I must point out that the immigration minister promoted this bill by using examples of extremely dangerous offenders. Of course we all agree with the idea of preventing dangerous people from walking freely in our streets. I am just as concerned as the minister about the safety of my fellow Canadians. I recognize the need to have an effective justice system in order to deport serious criminals who are not citizens.

However, emotion must not win out over reason in such a complex debate. Blindly and indiscriminately lowering our threshold of tolerance without considering each individual's particular circumstances is not a good solution.

Now let us talk about the vast discretionary powers given to the minister. I cannot support the removal of the appeal process for certain people. Furthermore, I cannot agree with giving the minister unilateral power to prohibit a foreigner from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. That power is much too vast and too vague.

In addition, there is a problem with Bill C-43 that the government does not seem to have thought about. We could end up deporting offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who no longer have any ties to their country of origin. That has happened before. A young person who immigrates at the age of two with his parents has no memories of his country of origin. He considers himself to be Canadian. His friends are here, as are his social network and family. He has gone to school and worked in his community. When he makes a mistake and commits a crime, however, he does not have the same rights as a citizen and risks being deported.

It is not a fundamentally bad concept. We all understand that serious crimes must be punished severely. That is why the rule regarding a two-year prison sentence is justified. However, by reducing that time frame to six months, we run the risk of deporting people who commit relatively minor crimes to countries they do not know.

The problem I have with this bill is not so much its intention, but rather the means it uses. Protecting society from dangerous criminals is one thing; cracking down indiscriminately and imposing disproportionate punishments on anyone who makes a mistake, no matter how minor, is quite another thing. Does the government realize how difficult it might be for someone to be deported to a country they do not know? I urge the government to seriously consider this question. In short, I would like to say this: let us make the system tougher when it comes to removing criminals if need be, but let us not do so blindly.

Another aspect that really worries me is mental illness. The minister does not say very much about this aspect in his press conferences on the bill, but many convicted criminals have mental health problems.

His bill deprives judges of a great deal of their discretionary power to consider the circumstances in which a crime is committed. I do not think this is a good idea.

According to Michael Bossin, a lawyer who specializes in refugee rights and has extensive expertise in that regard, in many cases, people who have mental illness problems often commit crimes when they are not treated. That is a well-known fact. Many convicted criminals struggle with mental illness.

What do we want as a society? Personally, I think proper treatment should be provided to offenders whenever possible. Locking these people up or sending them to their country of origin only covers up the problem; it does not solve it. It means off-loading the problem onto someone else. That is not what I expect from a country like ours.

People struggling with mental illness must receive care, even if they have committed a crime. This is not being soft; it is being compassionate and wise.

Since Bill C-43 practically ignores this troubling aspect of criminal behaviour, we have a right to question the bill's real intentions.

This leads me to my last point. This reform does not seem to based on any true facts or hard evidence. The government seems to be taking the same approach it used to amend the Criminal Code. It is clamping down without any sense of the outcome.

Can the minister tell us what crimes will henceforth be punishable by deportation? Can he explain why a person with a mental illness would be better off in prison or in his country of origin than at a hospital? Has he calculated the cost of his reform?

The cost associated with Bill C-31, for example, is $34 million. How much will Bill C-43 cost? We do not know.

Nor do we know the current number of deportations that are the result of a conviction, or how many cases involving a deportation order for a serious criminal offence have come before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Without such crucial data, how can we assess the potential repercussions of this reform?

I am convinced that it is possible to prevent non-citizens who commit a serious offence from abusing our appeal process without trampling on their rights. Like the vast majority of newcomers, I would like to have a government that is focused on improving the immigration system to make it faster and fairer.

On top of all the questionable changes that I have already mentioned, this government's modus operandi makes me wonder what its real intentions are.

The Minister of Immigration seems to be contemplating a two-tier system. Just look at the treatment Conrad Black received recently. Mr. Black committed a crime for which he served a sentence abroad, but when he wanted to return to Canada, the minister said he did not want to get involved and that the case should be left in the hands of the officials.

However, through Bill C-43, the minister is now asking for much more freedom of action. He also wants to have more discretionary power in order to intervene in cases involving the deportation and entry of criminals. We cannot always get everything we want in life. We cannot call for an independent system one day and ask for vast discretionary powers the next day.

What is good for Conrad Black has to be good for everyone else. If Mr. Black's file is reviewed by officials, then every file should be. In that sense, the proposed reform in Bill C-43 seems out of touch with reality. Does the minister want judges and officials to enforce the rules, or does he want to decide on everything himself?

This doublespeak does not seem very fair to me and makes me wonder about the minister's true intentions.

I am going to summarize my opinions about Bill C-43.

We all want to be tougher on non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada. However, like many experts, I am concerned about this Conservative bill that increases the minister's arbitrary powers. Judges will have fewer powers, and individuals who are mentally ill will be treated with indifference. The government is making these changes even though the vast majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding individuals who do not commit crimes.

I remember that, in 2006, the Conservative government promised to increase the number of police officers on the streets in our communities. But, for various reasons, the government did not keep its promise. I do not know if that was because the government lacked the will, because it was out of touch with reality or because it had misplaced priorities. What I do know is that the government cannot now make permanent residents pay the price for its inaction. Why not focus once and for all on protecting our communities, rather than on demonizing newcomers? Portraying them as future dangerous offenders, as the Minister of Immigration did in a news conference, is not helping. It looks as though he is trying to divert attention to a certain category of individuals rather than doing something useful.

For all these reasons, I think that Bill C-43 should be studied further in committee. A number of questions and concerns remain unanswered, and the only way to make the right decision is to think more about it.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. Unfortunately, she did not have enough time in 10 minutes to address all the points, but she did talk about the increased penalty for misrepresentation.

When a person receives permanent resident status after filling out a form at the embassy in their country of origin, misunderstandings may occur as a result of cultural differences. We do not see those differences because we live in a country with cultural standards. In some countries, there is a difference between ordinary crimes and political crimes. Some political prisoners or criminals are treated as common criminals. This cultural difference can lead to an inaccurate interpretation and, as a result, to faulty representation, or misrepresentation as described in the bill.

Could the hon. member talk about the potential dangers of increasing the sentence for misrepresentation in cases where there are rather significant cultural differences in the legislation and in the perception of ordinary crime and political crime?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question. I touched on this aspect without going into too much detail because of the short time I had. Once again, this is about the discretionary power that will be granted to the minister. There will no longer be any humanitarian considerations, which will be a serious problem.

As the hon. member said, in terms of criminal matters, legislation can vary from one country to another. Processing the cases of new residents without having the time to really go over them in depth will be very problematic.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something in this bill that I am very worried about. In the name of the national interest, the minister can use his discretion to deny permanent residence to applicants. The concept of national interest has not been explicitly defined. Furthermore, applicants who are denied permanent residence status do not have the right of appeal.

Can my NDP colleague explain why it is important for these people to have access to an appeal process, especially when the department and the minister have discretionary authority? With too much power concentrated in the hands of the minister, there can easily be abuses. I would not be surprised if that were to happen under this Conservative government.

Can she explain why it is important for people to have access to an appeal process?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Giving such discretion to the minister is like giving him a blank cheque and asking him to decide the fate of these people. He can decide to deport them without giving them the fundamental right to appeal. I believe this is a violation of the rights of these residents, who, as was said, contribute to our economy and are members of our society. They have the right to appeal a decision that they could believe is arbitrary.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has worked with criminals and that she is very knowledgeable about this subject. I will ask her a quick question. How does she think this bill is going over with groups that work in the area of social reintegration?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a real disaster. The Conservatives advertised this bill by using very high-profile cases of notorious offenders, who are very few in number. These cases are very well known because of the broad media coverage they received. This raises some concerns for individuals and for the organizations that my colleague just spoke about. Unfortunately, this issue must be examined more closely before decisions can be made.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak today on behalf of the people of my riding about Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the short title of which is the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

One of the reasons why I am interested in this subject is because I am an immigrant myself. My father was also an immigrant to the country in which I was born. Before becoming a Canadian citizen, I was a permanent resident. I heard the many very relevant comments of my colleagues in this regard. However, we have not yet heard from the Conservative members, which is unfortunate.

Like my NDP colleagues, I have many reservations about this bill. First, there is the short title: the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. Instead, we should talk about serious foreign criminals.

Bill C-43 refers to two types of people who do not have Canadian citizenship. There are newcomers, who are called “foreign nationals”, and long-time residents with permanent resident status. Permanent residents are in a different category than so-called foreign nationals because, under the bill, permanent residents can be temporary workers or students, for example.

One thing that seems to come back in all the pieces of legislation that have been introduced since the beginning of the 41st Parliament is the constant need to give more discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Frankly, this is a trend that I find very threatening as a citizen. Every time that a power is taken from the courts and judges and given to a minister, we have cause for concern. What is strange is that many reports have demonstrated that the law is not properly and fairly applied because of the lack of resources in the ministry and in the agency in charge of immigration.

One of the problems with this bill is the removal of the right to appeal in certain circumstances. That is dangerous, in my opinion. Obviously, nobody likes long appeal processes that last for years. However, the other extreme, which is, namely, no right to appeal, is certainly no better. I see nothing in this bill to prevent the possibility of abusing the system and this is something I would like the justice committee to be able to modify at the next stage.

This is another immigration bill. That is quite strange, because the government tells anyone who will listen that its priorities are the economy and job creation. As it says, it is focused like a laser on the economy and job creation.

We have a number of reservations. Reports from the Auditor General have uncovered serious problems in the processing of immigration files. Specifically, there have been problems with transparency and with information management at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Auditor General has mentioned that the act is applied randomly and that is very troubling. It is all the more troubling given the Conservatives' current tendency to concentrate decisions more and more in the hands of a few responsible people. But they are reducing the staff tasked with conducting the investigations that lead to the conclusions that allow those decisions to be made.

When you are a member of an immigrant community, as I am, you are inevitably very sensitive to the way in which immigrants are treated when they are convicted of crimes, especially those that the government is now calling serious crimes.

So that brings us back to the famous definition of a “serious criminal“. Previously, it was someone sentenced to more than two years in prison. From now on, it will be someone sentenced to more than six months in prison.

While, in theory, serious criminals are the only ones responsible for their actions, in practice, we see that crimes committed by a handful of people actually spill over onto the entire immigrant community to which those people belong. One of the direct consequences is that, more than anyone, immigrants themselves want a justice system that is effective, but above all fair, a system that ensures that crimes committed by a handful of people, however serious they may be, do not reflect negatively on an entire community that is living and working honestly and taking its place in the economy of this country.

I would also like to refer back to Bill C-31 that was brought before us in the spring and that received royal assent in June. Once again, it is very important not to lump together immigration and crime, not even by association, because too often, even systematically, when immigration and crime are lumped together, the result is xenophobia. Xenophobia is a real cancer for any open society, like ours in Canada, and for any country that has decided to use immigration as a way to replace the generations that have passed on.

Generally speaking, it is risky to examine an immigration issue in the context of a bill that targets a minority made up of foreign criminals among which only a very small number are serious criminals.

Let us now talk about the right of appeal. A number of my colleagues pointed this out. In a process—and this is a concern everyone shares—whenever the opportunity to appeal is removed, the image of justice is damaged and there is a risk of adding to the cynicism of a segment of the population that does not believe in our justice system.

There is a risk to the credibility of the justice system. That is why I am rather critical of this bill. There is a risk of adding to the cynicism of a segment of the population that does not believe in justice or in the justice system.

There has also been much talk about the case of new permanent residents who are awaiting their citizenship. There is also another situation that we do not talk about, namely that of people with dual or multiple citizenship. Quite often, people, immigrants, will not apply for Canadian citizenship. This is not because they do not want to participate in the life of our country but, rather, because they already hold citizenship that they would automatically lose if they took Canadian citizenship. This decision not only has consequences for the person who decides not to take Canadian citizenship, it also has an obvious impact on the children who did not make that choice, who did not have the opportunity to express their views on the fact that their parents decided not to take Canadian citizenship.

I am going to conclude by saying that, for all these reasons, we will support Bill C-43 at second reading. However, given the strong reservations that we have, we will give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights an opportunity to hear expert testimony that may support the serious concerns raised by my colleagues and myself during this debate.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. He said that this bill may have very harmful consequences. We are talking about people who arrived here when they were very young and who do not know their country of origin. We are also talking about people who have mental health issues and who are often overly criminalized.

We also know that the government wants to shorten the length of the sentence for sending these people back to their country of origin. A person who must serve a six-month sentence can therefore be sent back to his country of origin. The crimes in these cases are not very serious. These people can be reintegrated into the community and can still contribute to Canadian society.

Could the member speak to us about a particular case in his community? Should the Conservatives resolve other immigration issues before taking care of this one?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her question. She actually referred to many different cases. I am going to talk about a case that I found particularly touching, given that I come from an immigrant community. As I said, some people choose not to apply for new citizenship because they would lose their former citizenship. Consider two well-known cases: Indian and Chinese citizens. Those are the two most populous countries in the world. And the legislation in those countries does not recognize dual citizenship. So if Indian and Chinese citizens apply for another citizenship, they will automatically lose their original citizenship. We can understand that some immigrants have a sentimental attachment to their citizenship by birth.

As the hon. member pointed out, when they come to Canada, some parents with young children choose not to get this new citizenship. As a result, if one of the parents commits a serious crime, he or she can be deported. This means that children who have not reached the age of 18 can also be deported from Canada even though they are not responsible for their parents' actions.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his response.

The well-being of children is very important to me as well. There is a reason why my own bill has to do with youth bullying.

What concerns me about Bill C-43 is that the physical and psychological health of these young people, these children, could be compromised, especially if they arrive as refugees as a result of a dangerous situation in their country of origin. We all know that, for humanitarian reasons, some desperate people arrive here under circumstances that the government would consider unacceptable or even illegal.

What does my NDP colleague think we can do to improve this bill? How can we ensure that these young people and these children will be protected and treated humanely by the Government of Canada?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord touched on something very important. One of the reasons we support this bill at second reading is that it recognizes the people who have come here as a result of illegal activities, but who are in fact victims of human trafficking. This aspect is clarified somewhat in this bill, and that is positive. It is absolutely one of the reasons we support this bill at second reading.

However, let us not forget that it is often children who are the victims of trafficking and other criminal activities that we unequivocally condemn. This bill should be amended to ensure that we do not criminalize children who have been victims of trafficking or a criminal activity and who entered the country as a result of that criminal activity. We must eliminate any chance of sending them back to a country where they will be mistreated again and where they might end up back in the hands of the same traffickers who brought them to Canada illegally.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I would inform hon. members that we have passed the five-hour mark since the first round of debate on the bill that is before the House. Accordingly, for each of the interventions from this point on, the period allowed will be the usual 10 minutes for speeches and 5 minutes for questions and comments.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their encouragement. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to comment on this very important bill.

I would like to start by stating some principles. First, I agree that an efficient judicial system is needed so that we can deport serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens. This is a principle on which everyone here is in agreement. No one has a problem with it.

Another point on which almost everyone is in agreement—at least, I hope so—is that it has to be done fairly, humanely, justly and intelligently. And therein lies the problem. I will give a few examples. We want fairness, but one of the problems with this bill is that, once again, it broadens the minister's discretionary power. This is the trademark of the Conservative government. We have to wonder what discretionary power the Conservatives will give to the minister next.

I will not go back over the details of these measures because several of my colleagues spoke about them earlier. The real problem is this trend of giving more discretionary power to the minister.

That is what happened with the list of safe and unsafe countries to which refugees can be deported. Once more, the minister was given more discretionary power instead of calling on a panel of experts. That is dangerous. I do not know why the government wants to put its own minister in a situation like that. In international negotiations, other countries will put pressure on the minister to remove them from the list of unsafe countries. The minister will no longer even be able to point to the fact that an independent body draws up the list.

The government is always giving itself more discretionary power while reducing the flexibility that judges have. That is a problem because the minister exercises those discretionary powers behind closed doors. The minister makes the decisions; we do not know the details and we have no information. Conversely, when a judge renders a decision, the information is public; it is much more open. Reducing judges' flexibility and giving ministers more discretionary power compromises the transparency of the process. My fear is that fairness will be affected as well.

According to the bill as drafted, the minister is not even required to take humanitarian circumstances into account. Need I say more? This bill lacks compassion.

With respect to simple natural justice, the right to appeal for crimes where the sentence is longer than six months is being removed, whereas previously an individual could not appeal when the sentence was longer than two years. This issue needs to be considered in a broader context. On the one hand, harsher minimum sentences are being imposed, and judges cannot reduce those sentences based on the specific circumstances of the case. On the other, the period beyond which an individual does not have the right to appeal is being reduced from two years to six months.

To fully understand what this means, we need to stop and think about specific cases. I am trying to imagine a young Vietnamese boy who came to Canada when he was seven or eight years old and who started going to school and playing hockey with his friends. Now he is 19. He goes to CEGEP. At some point, he does something stupid. I am not saying that it is right, but he does something stupid. Under the new legislation and under the new regime, it does not have to be a huge mistake. He gets six months in prison. He is deported. He does not have the right to appeal. He is sent back, without his parents, to a country where he knows no one, where he may no longer have any family and where he barely speaks the language. Is it fair and humane to treat people like that? I am not so sure.

We have to be smart about this. Let me provide an example that is based on comments made by Ottawa lawyer Michael Bossin. He says that under this new bill, a judge no longer has the discretionary power to take into account the nature of the crime and the context in which it is committed. That is important. A judge no longer has the right to make his own ruling based on what he sees. A judge will not be able to look at the context in which the offence was committed and take into account, for instance, the possible mental illness of refugees or permanent residents from war-torn countries. Mr. Bossin said that in many cases, those people committed crimes when they were not being treated for their mental illness.

The government recently made cuts to refugee health care. Organizations such as RIVO, in my riding, provided psychological care to refugees from war-torn countries and refugees who were tortured or suffered other atrocities. It provided psychological counselling to prevent refugees from going off the rails and becoming criminals. These services are being cut, which hinders prevention. At the same time, cases of mental illness will not be taken into account. Nonetheless, refugees who are provided with these services can often turn their lives around.

Speaking of being smart about this, it should be noted that there is a lack of data and basic information. We are being asked to speak to this without having all the basic information on the annual number of cases, the seriousness of the cases, etc.

I want to point out that the government, in fact, is trying to punish everyone because of a handful of problem cases. That is what the Conservatives always do when it comes to refugees and immigrants. The striking thing about this bill is that its title refers to foreign criminals, as though permanent residents were foreigners. They are not all foreigners.

There was a well-known case in Quebec recently. A Portuguese man had permanent residence status and had been living in Quebec for 35 years. He was married and had children and a house. I would not call someone like that a foreigner. I would call him a non-citizen, a permanent resident, but not a foreigner. I have a good friend originally from England who just got married. He has a job and a circle of friends. He volunteers. To me, he is not a foreigner. I have a real problem with the short title of this bill.

As usual, the Conservatives are being stubborn and inflexible. They are being inflexible towards others, because they themselves always have discretionary power. There is no rigidity for them.

More importantly, they are refusing to attack certain known sources of the problem and are slashing health care spending for refugees and refusing to work on what we can do to better integrate immigrants, who have so much to offer to Canadian society.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the government is currently finding it difficult to integrate newcomers into our country. That is my opinion as well. In six years, the government has not been able to develop a program for integrating professionals from other countries.

Can my colleague talk some more about the fact that the government is unable to do its job with respect to this issue?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it is actually a very important point. The vast majority of Canadians came to this country through immigration. Immigration has always made this country strong and vibrant. Our true wealth consists of the people who have come here from all over the world.

At present, this government is reacting as though people from other parts of the world were essentially a threat rather than an asset. I would like us to work on bills such as this one, but we must not forget the main issue: integrating immigrants.

In my riding, in Montreal, we constantly see skilled professionals who could contribute to the economy and Canadian society, but who cannot do so because we are not working hard and collaborating to find a solution to the problem together with other levels of government.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, my parents were immigrants to Canada and they worked very hard to help build this country.

A couple of examples that NDP members have used have been about individuals who come to Canada but choose not to become Canadian citizens.

In one example the member talked about someone who came to Canada at the age of seven but at the age of twenty ran into difficulties with the law.

Another example from the previous speaker was about somebody who comes to Canada but has such an attachment to the country he came from that he chooses not to take out Canadian citizenship, although his kids are Canadian. He gets into trouble with the law and is sent back to his home country.

Is it the position of the New Democratic Party that the value of Canadian citizenship is so weak that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada should continue to carry on their backs individuals who do not make a commitment to this country?

Is it the position of the NDP that those individuals who break the law should not suffer the consequences of not valuing Canadian citizenship enough to take out Canadian citizenship after many years, and of breaking our laws?

Is it the position of the NDP that the value of Canadian citizenship is so low that we should not have laws in place to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Is that what the NDP is saying?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadian citizenship has enormous worth. That is why for many years of my life I have represented Canada abroad and have been very proud to do so.

However, my colleague's comments say it all when he asks if Canada should carry on its back people who are not citizens. That is the perspective of the government, and that is where it is mistaken. They are not people who we carry on our backs. They are people who contribute to our economy, our society, our culture and our diversity. They are what makes Canada the country that it is.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be clear, people who break the law--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I know they do not want to hear the actual truth because NDP members have had a great deal of difficulty with the truth lately, but we--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. It is really just a point of debate. Differences of opinion is what debate is all about but we will carry on. We only have one minute remaining.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that my colleague first spoke of people who were not taking citizenship and asked if we had to carry them on our back. Then he referred to people breaking the law and asked if those people breaking the law should pay a price. Yes, they should pay a price. If they have to go to prison or pay a fine they should do so, but the assumption always seems to be that it is non-citizens who commit the crimes. We do not have from the government any data or detailed information about whether non-citizens commit any more crimes than citizens.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not just sure that the NDP members are actually debating the right bill. I wonder if they have actually read the bill and the title of the bill because the bill is about the removing of foreign criminals from Canada. It is not about removing or punishing Canadian citizens. It is not about devaluing the hard work of immigrants like my parents who have come to this country. It is about removing people who have broken the law in this country so that the rest of the country can be safe and secure. That is what it is about.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Certainly the rules around relevance pertain to debate and it is a valid area that could be a point of order. In this particular case, the parliamentary secretary will know that members are given a lot of latitude in terms of how they can bring these ideas together and make them pertinent to the debate and the question that is before the House. We will have to say that we are within the realm of relevance here and it is up to the hon. members to bring those ideas together.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to share my concerns regarding the faster removal of foreign nationals.

Since the founding of this country, Canada has been a land of immigrants.

I, myself, am an immigrant, and I understand the many challenges that new Canadians face in integrating harmoniously into their new country, particularly those who arrive as refugees and who leave their countries in distress. Refugees often experience severe cultural shock. This distress is even more painful when they arrive with their children. Often, they have to learn to speak a new language. They have to find a place to live and a job, and the list goes on.

Immigrants who arrive as permanent residents start out differently because they emigrated by choice. However, once they arrive, they have the same difficulties as refugees in finding a place to live, getting a job and having their foreign credentials recognized. They sometimes end up unemployed and living in the most marginalized neighbourhoods through no fault of their own.

For an immigrant, finding housing is not an easy thing. I know from experience. With a family, it is even worse. Parents do not have their extended family to help them. Often both parents have to work and the children go to school.

The shock is even greater when a young person becomes a delinquent. Under Bill C-43, on reaching adulthood, he becomes an undesirable immigrant who has to leave his adopted country.

I am talking here about young immigrants who arrived in Canada at the age of one, three, four or eight, who grew up here and who went to school here. I am not talking about an immigrant who arrived in Canada at the age of 30 with suspicious thoughts in mind. I am talking about young people who became delinquents here in Canada. They went to school here. They should serve their sentence here. They should reintegrate into society as good citizens here in Canada. They are our responsibility as a society because they grew up here, not elsewhere.

We are talking here about a local problem, not an untraditional export. We are sending these delinquents to their parents' country of origin, a country that they are not necessarily familiar with.

We are talking here about people whom we educated and trained and who became delinquents in Canada.

Most newcomers to Canada are people who will obey the law and never commit a crime. That we know.

The Conservatives should put more effort into ensuring that these people are treated fairly and that they can be reunited with their family members. This would really help these families to integrate harmoniously into their new country and to take care of their children when both parents have to work.

I think about my students from the inner city. How many of them do not have a grandmother? It can really help to have a grandmother taking care of the kids after school, because their parents get home late in the evening. The child comes home with a key, opens the door and is home alone. It is easy to get caught up in the wrong crowd on the way home.

The Canadian justice system has a good reputation throughout the world, and I am concerned that we are sending the wrong signal by hastily deporting criminals without proper grounds.

Will we create more injustice by accelerating the process? Do we risk doubly penalizing people who made a mistake—I am not saying that these are all innocent people—but who paid their debt to society?

I would like to talk about two families in my riding. In both cases, Canadian children are being penalized when their parents are deported for a crime they committed at some point in their lives. In many cases it is a double penalty.

For example, a Colombian-Canadian family was forced to take their young Canadian children—this was in the papers—to a country our government was discouraging people from visiting on our travel warnings site. Another case highlights the importance of being reasonable and carefully studying this bill.

Last week a new case came across my desk. A Canadian citizen is concerned about the situation of one of her employees. This employee is at risk of being deported to Vietnam. This man arrived in Canada as a child. He was 8 years old. His parents died on the ship on the way to Canada. He grew up without his parents. He and his brother outlived them. He is now 40 years old and has six children born in Quebec. He is married to a Canadian.

He spent nearly all of his childhood, teen and adult years here. Around the age of 18, he committed crimes and was punished by the Canadian system, which means that he was tried and he served time in prison for his crimes. He served his sentence.

Being in jail got him thinking and he is now back on the right path. Moreover, for the past number of years, he has been telling the story of his life to other young people, in order to help them also get back on the right path. In doing so, he has helped many young people, and several of them can attest to that. He applied for a pardon two years ago, but things are dragging on.

Recently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada revoked his Canadian citizenship, and a deportation date has already been set. His fate seems already sealed.

He works as the leader of a team specializing in above-ground work related to supply. He is the top-performing team leader in his area. He is a very responsible person and a born entrepreneur. He is resourceful because he can find solutions when conditions are not ideal. He is also very respectful of his employees. Needless to say, he is essential to the company for which he works.

Vietnam is no longer his country. He has been living here for 37 years. His country is Canada. He has six children. One of them has reached the age of majority, but the others are all minors. So this father will be separated from his children. This man will be separated from his wife. He will be separated from his country. This is basically saying that immigrants are second-class citizens.

This example clearly illustrates what we have to be careful about, because Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility to examine humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

Currently, the minister has the obligation, at the request of a foreign national or on his own initiative, to look at the humanitarian and compassionate considerations related to a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds related to security, human rights or international rights violations, or organized crime.

If the minister deems it justified, he may grant an exemption for humanitarian and compassionate considerations, taking into account the interests of a child directly affected. However, the new legislation removes that ministerial responsibility.

Why would the government want to divest the minister of the responsibility to take into consideration the children's best interests when a person faces deportation?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for the wisdom that she brings to this issue and to this House.

These issues are very complex. These issues are never black and white. We all have countless cases that come through our offices where flexibility and an understanding of the details of these cases is very important.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak a bit more to the need for a system that could respond to the individual cases of sometimes extreme human tragedy and how we need to be very clear and flexible about some of this stuff.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, laws provide for sentences for people who commit a crime. But these people must not be punished forever. We want to return them to society. There is a reason why Canada is a country of immigrants. We need people.

Consider the example of the person I mentioned earlier. He suffered. Yes, he made a big mistake. He was sentenced for that, but he has the right to rejoin society. We have to be able to reintegrate people into society. People of faith know that this is fundamental. The person misjudged, made a mistake and is forgiven. Is that not what we believe?

According to the premise of this bill, we would tell this citizen that he is bad and we do not want him. We want perfect immigrants. At that point, we will define who is good and who is bad.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand what the hon. member is saying. What she means is that, if you are a Canadian and you move to another country, you are still a Canadian. If I move to Canada, I am still a citizen of my country of origin, but I am a Canadian and I have to have the same rights as other Canadians.

When you live in a country for 36 years, you might still be Hispanic at heart, but you are a Canadian. Your children are born here. They are Canadians and they have the same rights as other Canadians. That is what we want to safeguard.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when young people become offenders here, it is society's responsibility to take care of them. We cannot deport people who have become criminals here. Our Canadian society is responsible for people who were not able to integrate their families or to detect illness in their adolescent children. They need special assistance. We cannot tell people that they became offenders even though they came here at a very young age. It is our responsibility. They grew up and were educated here. We accept them and reintegrate them properly into society.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-43.

In a democracy, due process is the very life blood of our freedoms and the protection of citizens' rights. Political power as such must rest with this Parliament and not with any given minister. Any move that is seen as usurping the power of Parliament has to be, at the very least, questioned in this place.

Bill C-43, I would suggest, is coming on the heels of some very heated criticism of the Conservative government and its proposed refugee reform in Bill C-31. It also cuts at health care, as we hear spoken of in this place. It would seem to us that perhaps the government is trying to change the channel with Bill C-43.

The Conservatives' mantra for the last six years has been pretty much “tough on crime”. To some extent, they have extended that past the point of reality and into a great deal of spin.

When government members speak about the need for Bill C-43, they use some pretty extreme examples of foreign nationals abusing the immigration appeal process, to blow smoke over the fact that this bill is designed to effectively remove checks and balances that permit some flexibility within our system for extraordinary circumstances.

I am a believer in due process and the need for the right to an appeal. Not everybody's story is the same. There is a variety of things that can happen, and I will touch on those as I move forward.

However, I also support the ability for humanitarian and compassionate consideration for those people who, in some terms, might be inadmissible on various grounds: security, humanitarian, international rights violations or organized criminality. There are exceptions to every rule. Many times the whole story needs to be truly evaluated regarding a removal order.

We have had situations in Hamilton. For instance, at least one woman I am aware of, who had a number of children born in Canada, received a removal order. The order was suspended, but had there not been some reconsideration of the facts of that case, a pause for a second look, she and her children would have been forced out of this country. They may, in due course, still be forced to leave, but at least they will have had the benefit of due process and a real evaluation of their situation.

I want to stress that New Democrats do recognize the need for efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for the removal of serious criminals from Canada. Having said that, we do not support closing the door on an appeal process. There has to be balance.

None of us is perfect, nor are the ministers of the government. The reality is that sometimes in some places innocent people, even those not totally innocent, may have been inappropriately moved out of this country too quickly if they did not have the option of appeal.

In my opening remarks I talked about the supremacy of Parliament. We do not support granting the minister the power to unilaterally prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary citizen for up to 36 months based on public policy considerations. This is simply too vague and I would suggest unnecessarily too broad an application of ministerial discretion.

We have respect for the ministers of the government, and we understand that in most instances they are doing their due diligence as they see it. However, granting extraordinary powers is not going to be in the best interest of Canada and the rights of Canadians.

New Democrats stand with newcomers who want the government to focus on making the immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority who have not committed any crimes and who have followed the rules.

Practically every member in this place has stories of people, good souls, who waited in line, filled out the forms and did all of the things that were required of them to gain access to Canada and eventually become a citizen, only to be waiting in suspended animation for years.

We want to be sure that whatever changes are made are fair. When the minister talks about this particular bill, he talks about tough but fair measures and repeatedly emphasizes that it is easy for a non-citizen to avoid deportation. The reality is that one should not commit crimes. That is understandable. That is something we support.

However, Bill C-43 redefines serious criminality for the purpose of access to appeal. I keep coming back to that area of appeal, that area of a last chance. Once a conclusion is made on a final deportation order, Canadians expect us to be absolutely sure of the importance and necessity of removing that person.

I would suggest that this change merits further committee study. We in the NDP will support sending the bill to committee. We understand there is an issue. This is not a circumstance where we are on this side of the House saying that we are just going to oppose blindly. We are going to offer positive suggestions for changes to the bill at committee. We will extend our hand to the government to ensure that whatever bill is put forward will accomplish the job at hand, but protect people's rights in the course of that effort.

The narrowing of circumstances under which humanitarian and compassionate considerations can be taken into account makes the system less flexible. This has already raised concerns from groups advocating for people with mental illnesses, for example, who may not have been in control of themselves at the time a crime was committed. There has to be some consideration for that circumstance.

I have had family members over the years who had various stages of depression or various stages of mental illness. In one case a close relative was medicated for all of her life and was hospitalized for 10 years for a serious situation. At that time she was not in control of who she was. That person by the way was my own mother.

The broader discretionary powers in Bill C-43 would grant the minister the power to issue or revoke a declaration that would prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary citizen for up to 36 months. Many people in the community feel that this would go too far, and that is something for the committee to consider.

It is troubling to note that the Conservatives have marketed the bill almost exclusively on its design to speed up the deportation of serious multiple offenders. Could that be to draw attention away from the fact that Bill C-43 would remove an appeal process and would bestow these new and extraordinary discretionary powers to the minister?

This is not a case where decisions should be made by one person. Very serious decisions take place relative to removing someone from our country. These decisions have an impact on a person's life and family. There are occasions where it is absolutely necessary to remove someone, but we want to be sure that on those occasions the person has had due process and an appeal process. When we reach the conclusion that the person must leave, we can do that in clear conscience, knowing the facts and not relying solely on the judgment of the minister.

I am going to skip through part of my speech because I think my time is just about up.

In 1999, the Australian immigration system underwent a reordering with striking similarities to what is before us today. It is often worthwhile to look at another country, particularly a democracy similar to our own. The mistakes that were made in the Australian case were clear and well documented, and for some reason our minister thinks that Canada ought to repeat them.

Previous to 1999, people were protected against deportation if they had been residents of Australia for 10 years or more. However new amendments gave the minister new powers to dismiss appeals without judicial review. Many of those people had arrived in Australia as infants.

That kind of excessive power is what the NDP is concerned about. We are concerned that the appeal process would be shoved aside and these extraordinary powers would be granted to the minister. That would have a terrible effect on people in the community and their view of what life is like in a free country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my NDP colleague for his excellent speech, which provided a great opening to today's debate on a subject that is so fundamental to our Canadian values of humanitarianism, solidarity and compassion.

I would like to come back to the fact that, once again, the Conservative government is showing its nasty tendency to give its ministers additional discretionary powers. I find it worrisome that the Conservatives always seem to head in this direction. These additional powers will be used to prevent people from entering Canada, to deny them entry and to impose periods of ineligibility in which people cannot apply for temporary residence. I find it particularly worrisome that the government wants to put even more power in the hands of a single minister who can block entry into Canada, especially since the bill also removes the minister's obligation to assess and review humanitarian grounds.

For instance, if someone had fought a dictatorship like Pinochet's in Chile because of the importance of fighting oppression, why should the minister be free of the obligation to take into account the context and circumstances surrounding that individual's application for temporary residence?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for taking the time to take a good, solid look at the bill because protecting Parliament's rights and the power that is vested in Parliament is very concerning. A minister is granted the ability to exercise parliamentary power via bills like this, but if we get to the point where all of the power is vested in the government ministers, our very democracy becomes at risk.

I am not saying that there are not good people sitting on the government benches who would do the best they can, but that will not always necessarily be the case. There are going to be times when we will have people with less good judgment dealing with cases such as this, or a person could get elected who has an ideology that does not match the real feelings of Canadians. In those instances, if the power is vested with the minister to the degree that there is no appeal process, no going back to get that second view or to have the opportunity to give consideration to an extenuating circumstance that might not have been known before, that does a disservice to Canadians.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I know that my colleague is really involved, interested and passionate about human rights. He sits on the committee and I thank him for all the work he has been doing on the committee. He also sits on the finance committee, so he has a lot of talents.

In terms of the issue of refugees and human rights in Canada, we are a democracy where we have open arms and we try to get people to be part of the country and be part of what we can bring forward in terms of democracy. Could my colleague explain to us how we treat refugees whose human rights are under attack in their own countries and the impact the bill would have on those people?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, in many instances people on the street in Canada really do not have an understanding of the immigration process. There are roughly 250,000 immigrants in Canada who are no burden on Canadians at all. They do not cost the government a single penny. They came to this country with sponsors, some assets and moneys of their own, yet they are portrayed as somehow being a burden on Canada.

We get 8,000 to 15,000 refugees a year through the United Nations. Many of these people live in refugee camps before they come here. They do not even know what a light switch is. When they come to this country they face a high level of change. There are a lot of stressors, such as having difficulty finding employment because they do not have the educational background. There is a variety of things that happen. Our job has been, in our relationship with the United Nations, to protect people of that nature.

The impact of this is, again, that if we vest the power in the minister, we are at risk of making serious mistakes and that would be terrible.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-43 to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This bill does have some potential, but it also contains some disturbing elements that, in my opinion, should be more thoroughly examined in committee.

In many ways, these amendments to our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act could lead to abuse of the system and abuse of power. Let us start with the clause that gives the minister more discretionary power. This clause gives the minister—not judges or the courts—the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. In fact, this amendment allows the immigration minister to arbitrarily decide what risk a refugee represents, “if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”.

Let us now move on to the clause that allows the minister to avoid the responsibility of examining humanitarian grounds in the case of a foreign national who is deemed to be inadmissible. My colleague just spoke about it. In Canada, the government wants to give the immigration minister the opportunity to review people's files to assess whether or not they should be deemed admissible. This would allow the immigration minister to be inflexible with regard to the extraordinary circumstances in which asylum seekers sometimes find themselves.

Let us add to that the clause that amends the definition of “serious criminality”, a clause that uses extreme cases to defend Conservative measures to combat crime. In Bill C-43, the Conservative government is once again introducing the doctrines of its crime agenda by applying them to immigration. Whether we are talking about Bill C-31 or Bill C-43, it is always the same thing with the Conservatives.

This bill penalizes all refugees who arrive in Canada. Instead of defining and setting out a framework for the legal treatment of serious crimes committed by non-citizens, Bill C-43, in its present form, punishes legitimate refugees, as well as the civil society organizations, lawyers and other people who are trying to help them.

Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer in Ottawa, is of the opinion that the amendments to the new law could result in Canada exporting its social problems rather than dealing with the root causes of crime.

The minister said that he wants more power to intervene in order to deport criminals. In my opinion, he should spend less time organizing press conferences that paint a negative picture of newcomers, as in the announcements we saw recently, and instead provide police with the resources they need to protect us from criminals from all walks of life.

Instead of giving far too much vague power to the Minister of Immigration, why do the Conservatives not concentrate on improving the fairness and speed of the immigration system?

There are many immigrants in my riding. They represent almost one-third of the population of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I meet some of them every week when I return to my riding. In fact, I work on many immigration cases. I have one employee who works full-time on these cases because there are so many of them. The applications are straightforward and move along well. At the meetings, the applicants are given all the certificates, are told that they have been accepted and that they must forward their medical certificates. They wait for the certificates, but it takes months and months to get an answer. All the changes at embassies have made things worse.

There are many people who are good citizens and who have every right to come to Canada in the near future. There are problems with family reunification. There are people who want to come here to start businesses. Others want to come here to work and to live in a free country like Canada. But they sometimes have to wait up to 36 months before getting an answer, even if everything is in order. Even if a young 26-year-old man is moving here to be with his 25-year-old wife, even if these people will better Canadian society, even if they are going to work, are educated, are in perfect health and would make model Canadian citizens, they have to wait 36 months.

In my opinion, this type of bill should really address the problems we are currently having: the red tape involved and the slowness of the process. That is not what I am seeing. None of the bills introduced by our Minister of Immigration will solve the problem.

We have seen cuts to the embassies and more restrictions imposed on people who want to come here. The government is accusing immigrants and refugees of being criminals, but it is not coming up with anything to make things better. There is nothing in the bill about people who are here legitimately or about plans to help make the process smoother, because often it is an unpleasant and lengthy process. People anxiously await documents. The family in Canada is anxious as well. I think it would be better to include something to address that.

Hon. members will agree that most people whose application is rejected did not commit a very serious crime. Often the minister will nitpick about minor things and minor technicalities in order to have fewer people come here to Canada.

Most newcomers to Canada would like to be treated fairly and, more often than not, be reunited with their family members.

Bill C-43, as introduced in the House, gives far too much discretionary power to the Minister of Immigration and gives far too little importance to human rights. Nonetheless, as I have already said, it shows that the Conservatives have taken a slight step forward. The bill clarifies that entry to Canada as a result of criminal activities is not enough in and of itself to warrant a determination of inadmissibility. This measure protects the victims who are implicated in serious criminal activity.

The NDP supports measures to help victims of trafficking and the provisions that show respect for and openness toward the victims of trafficking. What is more, the NDP urges the government to support an efficient judicial apparatus that respects human rights.

The new legislation limits the right of a permanent or temporary resident to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, including in cases of extenuating circumstances for those who are sentenced to more than six months in prison and cases of appeals related to humanitarian considerations for those deemed inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality.

Mario Bellissimo, a Toronto lawyer and a member of the executive of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association, said that it is misleading to designate permanent residents as foreigners, that they are casting the net too wide. If people make one mistake—even if it is a non-violent crime—they will be removed.

Mr. Bellissimo believes that Bill C-43 reflects the government's lack of confidence in the immigration tribunal and the Canadian judiciary.

Why should such important cases have to suffer because of the Conservative government's lack of political will?

These changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act require more careful examination. That is why we will send the bill to committee. As I said at the beginning, we think this is a good start and the bill has potential. There are still some immigration issues to resolve, but we must examine them carefully and determine how we will resolve them.

It can be sad when I meet with my constituents. The people who come to my office have often been turned down as refugees. They were asked for proof. I recall one young woman. I will not give her name or say where she is from, but she sought asylum because she had problems with the police in her community. But she was asked to prove that the police were not on her side. These are the kinds of situations that I would like to resolve, because when a person has problems with the police, it is hard to get a certificate saying that the police are causing the problems.

I think that very serious problems should be studied to see how they can be resolved.

In conclusion, the NDP believes that we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal process without violating their rights. Let us remember our Canadian values and work together to build a stronger, fairer Canada. Let us show refugees, temporary residents, permanent residents and immigrants that Canada is a welcoming country, as it has always been.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, came as an immigrant to this wonderful country 32 years ago. I came under the family reunification provisions of the Immigration Act.

Over the past number of years, we have seen a dismantling of the family reunification provision, which, historically, has been an important component of getting immigrants into this country. Many constituents in my riding of Surrey North have had difficulties and have had to wait a long time to reunite with their loved ones.

Has the member had this experience in her riding?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question and for sharing his story. All parties in the House have members who came to Canada through the family reunification process.

In my riding, I often meet men who came here four or five years ago, ahead of their families, to work and send money back home. They are working here and have been trying for five years to bring their wives and children to Canada. In some cases, they have two-year-old children they have never met.

I am fortunate, because my family is together. I knew my parents when I was young. I may not remember it, but I knew my parents when I was a month old, a year old, two years old. I have known my brothers and sisters since I was born. I would like to be able to recreate that here in Canada. These people who come here to work do very well in our society. They are skilled, they make a financial contribution and they pay taxes. They simply want to bring their spouses and children—some they have never seen—to Canada, but it is a long process.

In my riding, it is usually fathers who come to see me. Some have told me that they have a two-year-old child they have never met. I find that so sad.

We are told that this bill will solve the problem and facilitate family reunification. There are many such cases in my riding. That is why I hope to see this bill examined in committee so that we can improve and strengthen the family reunification process.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by this bill. It has a great public relations title but it goes well beyond the faster removal of criminals. It would create broad, unfettered discretion for the minister to decide whether to allow someone to become a temporary resident.

I would refer my colleague to section 8 of the bill, which amend section 22 of the primary legislation. It reads:

The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

Further, it is discretionary, sweeping and without any objective criteria. I would like my friend's comments on whether she is also concerned that the minister, and not just the present minister but all future ministers, is being given the ability to rule by fiat.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

I have touched on the issue of the discretionary power being given to the minister. Let us be frank: I am concerned that so much power is being given to a minister. I am not talking about this minister in particular. As my colleague said earlier, we do not know who the future ministers will be. This legislation will be around for a long time. At some point, a minister might have poorer judgment or have difficulty making decisions.

This scares me a little. There is no denying that some groups of immigrants are more partisan than others. I find it hard to believe that this type of discretionary power will not be used for partisan purposes. Some groups of immigrants are more progressive, while others are more conservative.

I wonder about all this. I am worried that this minister or a future minister will use his discretionary power for partisan purposes, to accept applications from some groups of immigrants and not from other groups. I am worried. I find it troubling to see such broad discretionary power being given to ministers. I think it is up to the courts and not the minister to make this type of decision.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. A number of my colleagues have many people in their riding who immigrated to Canada and who think integration is a very important matter.

With regard to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, we are in agreement that our legal system must be efficient and must deport serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens. All parties agree on this public safety issue. However, we are worried about the scope of the bill. It must give some weight to fairness, to the human element and to justice. From this point of view, Bill C-43 poses a problem. The main problem is that it concentrates even more power in the hands of the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the eligibility of a temporary residence applicant.

Questions must be asked about the actions of the current minister. The government's policy is oriented less and less toward immigrant integration, and family reunification is being ignored. This affects me personally. Although I was born in Canada, my parents are of Vietnamese origin. They immigrated to Canada, and a number of people in the Vietnamese community are refugees.

When we look at the direction the government is taking, we realize that they believe integration and reunification are not very important. The government would rather see temporary workers come to Canada. We give them a job, we give them a salary that is lower than what Canadians are entitled to, we say thank you and then we send them back to their home country without really thinking about what they have contributed to Canada.

The bill gives the minister discretionary authority to determine the admissibility of a temporary residence applicant. This is disturbing, as we do not know where the government is going with this. At this point in time, the government does not give priority to people who are asking to come to Canada. We think this is a problem.

There is another major problem: the department will no longer be responsible for reviewing humanitarian considerations. I just mentioned that my parents came from a country where many refugees have come from. Before this bill, the minister had an obligation, at a foreign national's request, to look into the humanitarian circumstances surrounding the situation of a foreign national who was found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality. There are people who live in Vietnam and who are under pressure from the government.

I will read a quote from the report entitled, “Violations of Human Rights in Vietnam” from the Vietnamese Canadian Confederation. It says, “The government is restricting legitimate speech of journalists and bloggers who are advocating the rights through the usage of the Internet, newspaper and radio. There are some prison sentences for broadcasters and people like that”.

If we were to take out the right of the minister to actually look at how we can help them come here, even though they are being attacked in their own country, we would be moving Canada away from what we used to be, which was a country that was really open and that believed in human rights. The fact that we are taking out the fact that the minister can actually look at that is an issue of serious concern.

We have also noted another problem. This one has to do with the discretionary authority that is given to the minister with regard to the exemption for members of a family of a foreign national found to be inadmissible. The minister may ignore the inadmissibility of a member of the family of somebody who is inadmissible on grounds of security if the minister believes this is not detrimental to the national interest.

Here again, we are talking about powers that are placed in the hands of the minister. Here is what we are saying: if it is only one person who decides, if it is only the minister who has to make the decision, in a rather arbitrary way even though the national interest is at stake, if it is the minister who decides about policies and measures and has full authority, whether it is the current minister or the minister in a future government, there is a problem. We are seeing this more and more often under this Conservative government. There really is a trend toward more and more discretionary power, not only in immigration matters, but also on an economic level. More and more frequently, the government is giving power and discretionary authority to one person. This is what is dangerous. They are walking a path that is less and less democratic, less and less transparent, and they are relying more and more on decisions made by one single person. For the NDP, this is worrisome.

I reiterate that it is important to deport foreign criminals. We understand this aspect of the bill. We understand that this is what must happen if we want to protect Canada and ensure that the people who come here deserve to come here. A number of my colleagues opposite and we in the NDP are well aware that in our respective ridings the people who come here are usually good people who contribute to Canada's growth and help make Canada a better country. However, when you isolate them and cast them all as criminals, as this bill does, that is going too far. This is why we want the committee to look at the bill, discuss it and try to find good solutions. We really want to promote integration and have fewer discretionary powers. We have to minimize the stigmas attached to certain immigrant groups.

With regard to fairness and time frames, we know there is a problem. Why does the government not focus on the fact that families are not being reunited? This has come up in many riding offices, including my own, because I represent a riding with a high number of immigrants who are trying to bring their families here, or bring some family members here for a wedding, and this means waiting for a number of months. Nowadays, visas are being denied more and more often. The government is moving in a certain direction: rather than integrating and accepting immigrants, it puts them off and tries to send them back. Apparently, the door is open only for temporary workers who can be sent back home after they have been used for cheap labour, as I mentioned earlier.

The New Democrats know that Canada must have an effective judiciary to deport non-citizen individuals who are serious criminals but there are problems with the immigration system that should be addressed, which I just mentioned. We have serious concerns with the amount of power that would be placed in the hands of the minister.

I have something that came from a group that talks about the problems we have in terms the government not doing enough or basically taking away the right of appeal. That is also a big issue for us in terms of this bill.

The bill grants discretionary power, but more importantly, it takes away the right of appeal. It is very worrying that an individual can be refused access to an appeal process. It is a problem when more rights are being given to the Minister, but the right to appeal is being eliminated.

I will quote Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, who said that the bill raised constitutional issues under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He stated, “I am concerned that there is no right of appeal for those being deported. This is serious injustice in that case and should be heard on their own merit”.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague on his speech.

He reminded us of the importance of focusing on improving the immigration system to make it faster and more efficient with regard to family reunification, foreign credential recognition, and the situation of temporary foreign workers.

This bill redefines the notion of permanent resident in a fairly specific manner. In my opinion, we need to pay close attention to these profound changes. There has already been Bill C-31, and now there is Bill C-43. I think that the fact that the minister could potentially be given even more discretionary power is clearly a danger that we really need to pay close attention to.

Some stakeholders have pointed out something important about first-time offenders: that they could be deported even though they are not at all familiar with their country of origin.

What can my colleague tell us about this?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her question. As the NDP deputy critic for citizenship and immigration, she is well aware of all those issues. I know that she is actively travelling across Canada to meet with people. She knows that the changes made to the immigration system by the current government will have a negative and direct impact on people. So I would like to thank the hon. member for her work and for her question.

Yes, changing the definition of “serious criminality” for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility will create problems and will have a negative impact on young immigrants. Those young immigrants came here when they were very young and they do not really know their country of origin.

Once again, this government has a tendency to send people back to their country once they have been “used”. I mentioned the case of temporary workers who are brought here, put to work and then removed. In those cases as well, we are talking about young people who have contributed to our country, who have made Canada a better country and who are members of our society. But instead of rehabilitating them and giving them an opportunity to be part of the Canada we want and continue to promote, we reject them and send them back to a country they know nothing about.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with a certain degree of interest.

What I find particularly disturbing in the comments raised by the people on that side of the House are the wild accusations that somehow we are moving away from a society that cares about refugees and the people who come to this country. Nothing could be further from the truth as proven by our record on many occasions. We have increased the number of resettled refugees by 20%. We will be inviting more than 14,000 additional refugees to settle in Canada, which will give us the highest refugee resettlement rate in the world. Therefore, I would caution my colleague on making careless comments like that.

I agree that the legislation would give the minister certain powers. One example is with respect to people who want to come into this country and spread hatred. We had a situation like that last year and people in Canada were saying that we should not be allowing these types of people into the country. This legislation would give the minister the power to say that those people are inadmissible to Canada.

Why will the member not support the minister keeping people who would spread hatred out of the country?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Let me remind him that, today, we are talking about what we are seeing on the ground. The change being made by the government directly affects people, and we are seeing that now.

I encourage the hon. member to visit communities and to meet with people. In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, many people from various communities are experiencing this problem.

We do not have a problem with the removal of those who commit serious crimes. What we have a problem with is placing too much power in the hands of a minister who can arbitrarily decide who can enter this country and who cannot. Therein lies the problem.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the privilege of speaking in the House about the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

I believe it is very important to be able to discuss with all my colleagues in the House the problems related to the criminality of foreign nationals in Canada. We would be happy to work with the government on the problems related to the appeal process. We are not denying that there may be problems, but we want to work together to establish the facts and find solutions.

But the government has introduced Bill C-43. It is a starting point, but we have some legitimate concerns that some of my colleagues have taken the time to explain in a very clear and concise manner and that give rise to some very valid questions. We must not forget that we are talking about implementing a legal process. The legal process in Canada is based on a long-standing tradition. This tradition and the principles behind the process date back thousands of years.

One of the basic principles, which is not difficult to understand, is that no one can be detained arbitrarily, without reasonable cause. It is a very simple and basic principle. Over centuries it has resulted in a series of definitions that limit the arbitrary decisions of the Crown in order to prevent abuses and to prevent innocent people from becoming victims, even without a conviction, of the judicial system or the police.

One of the measures in Bill C-43 would redefine serious criminality of foreign nationals in order to determine whether or not they have access to the appeal process. The current law establishes the criterion for serious criminality as a sentence of two or more years, a criterion applied in federal and provincial penitentiary systems and also to certain types of crimes and the corresponding sentences.

In changing the prison term to six months or more, Bill C-43 greatly increases the number of people who could be excluded from the appeal process for categories of crimes that—I am not downplaying these crimes or excusing offenders—could be given some latitude so the offenders have options to rehabilitate and re-enter society.

When criminals are sentenced for a crime, we must never forget that they will eventually re-enter society, unless they are sentenced for life or are not successful in the traditional parole process. These cases are very rare, since most people re-enter society. They have lives after serving their sentences. I am not only talking about prison sentences, but also conditional sentences that can last years. With these conditional sentences, if an individual offends again, he could receive a harsher prison sentence or be forced to serve a sentence he did not serve as a result of the conditional sentence.

This entire system applies to all Canadian citizens and is in line with international tradition and consensus, which we must respect.

I will talk about another very important point that has not come up much in this debate. It has to do with Canada's place in the world, which I would define as being a good citizen in the community of nations.

One of the principles of international relations is that a sovereign state is not subject to other states. In other words, all states are treated equally and they have full sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own territory.

Given the consequences of the measures proposed in Bill C-43, we have to wonder if a policy to export more criminals—even our petty criminals—elsewhere in the world would turn us into a bad global citizen. It is very important to take that into account.

I can understand that the government wants to make sure criminals coming from outside Canada are not able to settle in Canada with impunity, and too easily. However, we must also not forget that the bill will affect people who have lived in Canada for a very long time, people who in many cases came here to live when they were very young, at a time when they were entirely dependent on their parents. Those people have grown up in Canada, and because of unfortunate life circumstances, they may have committed a crime and become targeted by this law because they unfortunately do not have Canadian citizenship.

In addition to potentially hurting those people, this two-tier system can also harm a country elsewhere in the world. That country could find itself with a person who was born in the country in question and has committed crimes in Canada, but has never committed a crime in their country of origin. What legitimate basis is there for Canada to offload that burden onto people elsewhere in the world? That is one of the questions we have to ask ourselves.

Most importantly, we must not forget that in Canada, we have very extensive protection, thanks to the privilege we have of living in a very wealthy country, with a justice system, a political system and a social and economic fabric that are highly developed. That creates a safe country that gives all of its citizens the opportunity to find their place and succeed. That is truly not the case elsewhere in the world.

I remember something one of my colleagues said to me. She had had the chance to travel in Latin America. In response to the measures that the Canadian government had taken or was considering, elected representatives there asked her what we thought we were doing by sending people back to them like that, people who had committed crimes in Canada. Did she think they would be able to deal with these people? These are people who might set up much more extensive criminal networks in those countries. If we kept them in Canada, we would have the resources to combat their criminal activities. After getting a slap on the wrist and a sentence, young petty criminals might even see the error of their ways and embark on a process to become good, honest citizens.

We may very well be condemning petty criminals to a life of serious criminality by denying them any chance of having hope in the future.

That is one of the aspects of Bill C-43 we will have to look at.

I very much want to make sure that Canada does not become the equivalent of the 19th century Wild West, when a town was allowed to tar and feather a criminal to export the problem to somewhere else, which did not necessarily solve the problem.

I will be pleased to be able to continue the debate and discussion with my colleagues and see how we can improve Bill C-43.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou speak, and I thought to myself that this really is a Conservative government that is overreaching itself, that is going a little too far beyond the powers it should have. We see it granting itself discretionary powers in Bills C-31 and C-43, and now in Bill C-44. I know there are a lot of immigrants in my distinguished colleague’s riding, especially in the Beauport area. I am also thinking of them today.

In light of what we can see and what my colleague and his whole team can see on the ground in Beauport—the requests they get from those people—I would like him to tell us a little about how the people caught in red tape see things.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec, who handles a lot of immigration cases herself and will undoubtedly understand very well what I am going to say.

We must not pretend otherwise: people who come to Canada come here to improve their lives, for one thing, but also because they have complete faith in the system of government, in Canadian institutions. In our offices, we handle cases of people who have permanent resident status or who have not yet acquired that status, who are waiting, who want to bring their spouse or children to Canada. They come in the hope of getting a fair and equitable resolution. Our role as elected representatives, obviously, is to be fair and equitable and not to influence the system unduly.

But at the same time, through our actions and our explanations, we have to be able to confirm to these people, who have come to Canada with high hopes, that they were entirely right to have faith in our institutions and our system.

My colleague has drawn our attention to a particularly fundamental point: what faith will people around the world have in Canada, ultimately, if we become unfair and inequitable?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to simplify what the government is proposing to do here.

At the end of the day, when the Conservatives talk about foreign criminals, what they are really talking about are 1.5 million people who reside in Canada and call it their home. They are talking about permanent residents. What they are saying for example is that if someone is caught with six marijuana plants, he or she would be deported, with no appeal because the minimum sentence would be a six-month jail term. Therefore, for having six marijuana plants in their home, someone who might have been living in Canada for 15 or 20 years and who could be a parent with three children would be deported, and their spouse and children could stay.

I wonder if the member could tell me whether or not that is fair in terms of Canadian justice.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for pointing out one of the potential pitfalls in Bill C-43 and in the particular approach to crime that my Conservative colleagues unfortunately take.

I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Obviously, and I will not try to hide the fact, we have had some very tough and sometimes even acrimonious debates, for example concerning minimum sentences for certain crimes, the toughening of certain laws and denying the opportunity for rehabilitation so we can provide alternatives for petty criminals.

I am going to offer my colleague the example of a wonderful organization in Quebec City, L’autre avenue, which helps offenders, adolescents, who have committed minor crimes to stay out of the justice system. In fact, it offers the police an alternative to laying charges, and at the same time this makes it possible to create a system of restorative justice that allows victims to draw comfort from the knowledge that the offender is aware of his wrongdoing and is mending his ways.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a reputation for being a welcoming country, but unfortunately, under this government, problems with our immigration system keep piling up. Instead of dealing with the cumbersome bureaucracy, the Conservative government has instead introduced another bill, on the heels of Bills C-4 and C-31, that will not do much and, in fact, will cause more problems of injustice.

Bill C-43 seeks to deal with crime and speed up the deportation of immigrants who commit crimes in Canada, but also of permanent residents who have become Canadian citizens.

My colleagues in the official opposition and I, along with colleagues from the other opposition parties, all agree that it is important to have a reliable and fair judicial apparatus. People who commit serious crimes and who are not Canadian citizens should indeed be punished, but let us not be deceived by this bill. The fight against crime is just a smokescreen. The real purpose of Bill C-43 is to give the minister more discretionary power and to remove all flexibility from the justice system and all independence from judges. This will only further politicize our immigration system instead of making it fairer and more efficient.

The bill will make a number of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will name a few.

It will change the appeal process in certain cases, which goes against a fundamental right; permanent residents, refugees and illegal immigrants who receive a prison sentence of six months or more in Canada can no longer appeal their deportation; the bill will also allow authorities to hold at the border individuals who pose a risk to Canadians; it will require Federal Court judges to impose certain detention conditions on a person deemed inadmissible; it will put more powers in the hands of the minister—he could decide to deny temporary resident status if doing so is justified by public policy considerations interest, but unfortunately, the bill does not define “public policy considerations”; in fact, the bill gives the minister the power to define “public policy considerations” himself—; and the bill removes the right to appeal if the prison sentence was six months or more.

The first problem with this bill is that it does not differentiate between a minor offence and a serious crime, which is what the hon. Liberal member pointed out. An immigrant who receives a six-month sentence would automatically be deported. The right to appeal is revoked. In addition, the bill redefines “serious criminality” and includes minor offences. With no right to appeal and with such a broad definition, we can expect to see court challenges. This approach is not at all consistent with Canadian law.

The other problem, which is even more serious, has to do with the discretionary power the minister wants to give himself. He is the one who decides whether to issue a visa or not, but he is no longer required to consider the humanitarian circumstances of the situation. That is a double standard. In fact, we get the impression that the minister is targeting immigrants and refugees, forgetting that the vast majority of them are not criminals.

There is no question that this bill will end up eliminating the safeguards that allow our justice and immigration systems to deal with particular circumstances. Immigration officers and judges no longer have the power to examine the cases before them. That is quite serious. Judges have the power to judge, but they no longer have the power to do so properly. Way to go. The minister is imposing a standard model on the system. Abuse of power is a very real possibility. If the government makes mistakes, how will the people affected be able to defend their rights? They have no recourse, and that is serious.

The goal of the bill is commendable, but all those aspects give us reason to fear that there is a breakdown in our Canadian justice and immigration systems.

The fundamental question is this: do we want major decisions in criminal law to be made by a minister? In a state governed by the rule of law, such as Canada, the principle of balance between the judicial, governmental and legislative powers is essential.

Why is the whole process being so politicized? What is the justification for this discretionary power? The Minister of Immigration answered this recently by saying that he did not have the time, and added that it was important to act when foreign nationals were at an airport. It does not always happen like that, and things are not always so simple. In fact, it is always more complicated.

Too much haste could produce the opposite effect and create a system plagued by abuses of power, as we heard earlier. It could trigger legal challenges and lapses with regard to our international obligations. The bill's intention is good, but the text really needs to be improved, to ensure that it respects our basic rules of law. The entire immigration system needs to be reformed, but certainly not with the radical measures proposed by the Conservative government.

Our system is marred by bureaucratic problems and arbitrary decisions. Since the Conservatives came to power, there has been a backlog of over 1.5 million immigration applications. Parents and grandparents who want to be reunited with their children and loved ones wait, on average, for seven years before receiving a decision. Skilled workers have to wait an average of four years. Some spouses and children who were supposed to be given priority wait three years—and these are the priority cases.

Instead of accelerating the processing of claims, the government is cutting programs for refugees. The planned cuts to the interim federal health program will deprive some people of health care services. The Conservatives are proud of that. They claim to be champions of the economy, but in reality, they are failing miserably. Many immigrants are still waiting for their foreign degrees and experience to be recognized. The federal government could create tools to recognize foreign credentials and allow these skilled workers to contribute to our economic growth.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates the financial loss created by the failure to recognize foreign credentials to be $4 billion a year. And what about the partisan appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board? Applicants' cases are not all treated the same way, and the criteria are not always applied consistently. Why does the government tolerate such an arbitrary and unfair process? This partisanship does not reflect well on Canada and denies immigrants access to a fair and equitable system.

This government treats immigrants like disposable objects. For example, it increased the number of temporary workers by 200% while allowing employers to decrease these workers' earnings by 15% as compared to the earnings of Canadian workers. Rather than encouraging the long-term integration of immigrants, the government is treating them like second-class citizens.

As the daughter of a refugee, I can say that the contribution of women and men, immigrants, refugees, people who come to start a life here is incredible. On average, newcomers are better educated and have a well-developed business sense. The rate of entrepreneurship among newcomers is very high, and they create jobs and participate in the local economy. We cannot assume that all immigrants are potential criminals. That is managing through fear. Foreign nationals can contribute to Canada both economically and culturally.

Let us also not forget that this country was built by people who came from all four corners of the earth and who chose Canada as their homeland. Why not improve our system to give skilled workers the opportunity to come and work in areas where there is a labour shortage? Instead, the government is cancelling the applications of 280,000 skilled workers, freezing sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents, and continuing to deny visas without reasonable grounds and without the possibility of appeal, thereby preventing families from being reunited for the weddings or funerals of their loved ones.

As New Democrats, we are in favour of a justice and immigration system that condemns violence, criminality and fraud. It is vital that we protect our country against criminals, while treating them fairly. We are prepared to work with the government on bills such as this one, but it must be improved and amended to make it acceptable from a legal standpoint. We believe that some aspects of the bill are constructive, but the traffickers at fault must be punished, not the victims.

Why do the Conservatives not put aside their ideology and make it possible for all of us to work on the bill in committee to make it better? It is possible for Canada to welcome newcomers and fight crime at the same time.

It is possible to do all that at the same time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with some of our concerns about Bill C-43.

Another concern deals with the power grab by the minister. The minister has demonstrated in other pieces of legislation that he feels he should take it upon himself to make fairly profound decisions, such as determining which countries in the world are safe countries, or what grouping of two or more people who come to Canada should be listed as irregulars. Now, in this particular bill, he wants to have sole authority to ban someone from coming to Canada.

Does the member recognize the value of putting checks in place to protect people who might want to apply to visit Canada and thereby prevent any given minister from going on a power trip because he does not like a region of the world or has a bias against some beliefs that some people might hold? Does she believe there needs to be a check put into place to prevent the minister from taking actions that would not necessarily conform to what Canadians would want to see?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North.

I agree completely with what he just said. Giving the minister discretionary powers over legal matters is completely illogical and inappropriate. It creates different levels of decision-making that can be partisan, which is not at all the mandate of the justice system. The process should be fair, equitable and completely devoid of partisanship.

We need a framework and clear rules that cannot be changed at the whim of any minister in any case. We must ensure that there is a transparent, fair and equitable base for all in every situation and a framework in which judges are free to make decisions in their area of expertise in order to have flexibility in certain specific cases.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the abusive language, the fancy title, the clichés and the extreme cases that people used in drafting this thing.

I grew up in another time, when a majority of Canadians probably regarded immigrants and refugees as a threat and a nuisance. Fortunately, this came to an end around the time the hon. member's parents arrived here as immigrants. Most Canadians now believe that immigrants have important cultural and economic contributions to make to our society.

When I see these fancy titles that never end, like “protecting widows and orphans” and so on, I get the feeling that someone is trying to create hysteria in the community to provoke negative feelings about refugees and immigrants.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for the question, which is also very pertinent.

The Conservatives have a habit of reigning with fear. Instead of tackling problems and trying to solve them, trying to come up with solutions and options, they are creating more problems. Instead of creating a level playing field, the Conservatives are taking away people's rights. They are talking away the right to appeal. They are making sure that refugees are regarded as illegal groups when they arrive by boat or by any other means. Yet most refugees who come here do so in good faith, in order to work and make economic and cultural contributions.

For instance, when my parents arrived here, they had nothing. They both became nurses and started a business. They hired other people, thereby helping to keep the economy moving, while ensuring that we integrated into Canadian and Quebec society.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

It seems as though the Conservatives have hired a publicity specialist since they took power, since bill titles are worded in such a way that no one could be opposed to the bill. It is a bit like sugar pie. However, as legislators, we must obviously read the bill and get familiar with the details, the ins and outs, before making a decision about it. We cannot make our decision based on the title; we must base our decision on all of the elements of the bill.

A quick read of Bill C-43 exposes a lot of flaws, gaps and vagueness. There are indeed some measures to be adopted to deport criminals who are permanent residents but abuse the system and the procedures to remain in Canada or Quebec.

I think that all members of the House agree on that. After listening to my colleagues who spoke earlier and after reading some other speeches made since the bill was introduced, I see that we are unanimous on that. However, does Bill C-43 solve all of those problems? No. Does it create others? Unfortunately, I believe so. That is what I will speak about for the next few minutes.

An ideology is behind all of this. This was brought up by the two members who just spoke during questions and comments. The Conservatives are using a lot of prejudices and clichés to promote what I like to call a “tonight we will scare people” ideology.

The notions of criminality and immigration are often confused, as is the case in this bill, which talks about criminality in relation to immigration. So, whether in reference to criminality or immigration, the Conservatives are trying to prove to certain people that there is a danger. Some refugees arrive by boat and, suddenly, we are led to believe that we are being invaded by a host of refugees arriving from all over. And they are not just refugees—that is not how they are referred to—they are criminals. That is what the government wants people to believe. This makes it easier for the government to tell Canadians not to worry because it will send the criminals back.

On weekends, when we go out and meet the people in our ridings, we realize that they are not aware of all the details of these situations, and they do not know exactly what happened. However, they saw the Minister of Immigration at a press conference talking about some extreme examples that obviously do not happen every day. Those examples should be used to address the flaws in legislation. We agree with that. But we should not generalize and make people believe that all cases are like that. I think we need to settle down, take a deep breath and correct the real problems. We should not play politics at the expense of the most disadvantaged—immigrants and people grappling with certain other problems.

The Bloc Québécois obviously understands that reasons for protecting society have to be included in immigration laws. Of course, a society will naturally want to receive law-abiding immigrants who have a real desire to integrate. As well, a society will naturally not to want to become a safe haven for criminals who want to flee their own countries. But some of them manage to sneak in. It is absolutely normal for the minister to speak out against it, and that is what everyone else does too. It is also normal to try to improve processes so that proceedings for the deportation of criminals do not drag on.

I talked about abuse just now. We talk about abuse when people come to Canada and continue to do what they did in their country of origin. For instance, they may be street gang members. Sometimes, street gang members from a country get together and organize themselves in another country. A street gang in a country can have roots in other countries. That can also happen to us. If the first thing those people do when they come to Canada is to join a street gang instead of integrating into society, we will obviously not want to keep those types of immigrants here.

People may be shocked by the examples of people who abuse the processes available to immigrants in order to further delay their deportation. But the minister uses those examples to make us believe that everyone is like that, which is not the case.

However, those measures have to be well targeted; they have to prevent criminals from entering, not stop innocent people at the border.

These measures also have to be proportionate. The government must propose effective measures that respect fundamental rights. We must not adopt a measure that is akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly.

Although the purpose of Bill C-43 is commendable, the bill has not achieved the necessary balance to fill the gaps in the current legislation. My colleagues talked about proposing some amendments to the bill in committee. This would allow us to study the bill, which is the right thing to do.

The current legislation includes a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for immigrants who feel wronged by the first level decision. Some restrictions already exist. Under the current legislation, a permanent resident or a foreign national who is inadmissible on the grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality does not have access to the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, serious crime is defined as the commission of an offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years that resulted in a prison sentence of two years. Bill C-43 further limits the right to appeal by reducing the imprisonment criterion for serious criminality to six months only.

I heard my colleagues talk about this and I agree with them. What is serious criminality? We would not want to keep someone who lands here and becomes a thief and a highway robber, who commits sexual assault, who repeatedly commits crimes that are punishable by lengthy prison sentences. There is a big difference between someone who commits a serious crime and someone who is found guilty of or charged with possession of drugs—marijuana for example—possession of stolen property under $5,000, or public mischief. I do not have many examples, but I believe a person can be charged with public mischief for urinating on the street or in a parking lot. There is a big difference between that type of public mischief and a more serious crime. I am not saying that people should not be punished for mischief; they should. I am just wondering whether that is reason enough to deport someone. There is a big difference between belonging to a street gang and committing public mischief or being in possession of some marijuana.

The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about the cumulative effect of the Conservative measures. For example, under Bill C-43, a sentence of only six months qualifies as serious criminality. It is important to see the connection with the many minimum sentences that the Conservatives are incorporating into their bills. They have just added a bunch of sentences so that less serious crimes can be used as a pretext to deport people who could contribute to Quebec and Canadian society after they have made amends. The Conservatives are imposing more and more minimum sentences of one to two years in prison, without any regard for how serious the offence actually is and without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.

We have often fought here in the House against the imposition of minimum sentences for anything and everything. This has been the Conservatives' pet project since they came to power in 2006. Regardless of what happened—for example, if the person was only the driver during a crime—and regardless of any extenuating circumstances, what counts is that the person was there at the time of the crime, and he must serve a minimum sentence like the others. The Conservatives are tying judges' hands because there are no gradations in the sentences that they can impose. This breeds inequity.

As a result, an increasing number of people will be labelled as having committed a serious crime. I am thinking of offences related to the possession of narcotics in particular.

I will end my remarks here. Members have talked a lot about the minister's discretionary power. That is another weakness of this bill. We are being told that this process will be guided by regulations, but we do not yet know what these regulations will be. I hope that this will be clarified in committee and that changes will be made to this bill so that we can be safe and so that we are not deporting people who do not deserve to be deported.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Richmond—Arthabaska on his speech and on the vivid imagery he used, in particular using a bazooka to kill a fly.

This reminded me of the speech by the member for Beauport—Limoilou and his rather grim imagery of a Wild West movie in which the criminal is tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Everything the member said gives me real cause for concern about our international reputation and how we want to manage this society. I would like to hear what he thinks about that.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is absolutely right. I do not want to hurt his feelings, but our reputation has been tarnished since this government took power, because of its propensity—and specifically the propensity of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism—to make choices about the kind of immigrants who are welcome in Canada. It is fine if you have money or if you are a member of certain communities, but as soon as we start talking about refugees, things start to get more difficult.

The government wants to quickly remove people who commit certain crimes, but it is talking about crimes that are less and less serious. So obviously, we no longer have a reputation as a welcoming country.

I am thinking about a real case I heard of. In fact I spoke to people who were close to this woman. She is an elderly woman of French origin and has been in Quebec for a very long time. Her only family is in Quebec and her daughter takes care of her. This elderly woman has mental health problems and is now a kleptomaniac. She shoplifts from time to time. Under the current law, the government wants to send her back to France. Her home is in Quebec with her daughter. But they want to send her back to France.

This woman needs help and compassion. She does not need to be sent to France, where she has not lived in years and where her problem will not be resolved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one issue is the inadmissibility of family members based on the fact the individual might belong to an organized gang, for example, and there are many gangs in Canada.

I used an example, from one of the briefings I was provided, of Nelson Mandela's wife. The person pointed out that technically Nelson Mandela's wife had committed some crimes, so she would not have qualified for a visiting visa. Then I used the example of Mahatma Gandhi and the fact that his wife would be unable to apply for a visiting visa.

Why are we saying no to the ability of individuals to visit Canada if they might have a family member who has had some issues? A specific example would be if an individual has two children, one in Canada and one in country X and the one in country X has some problems with some local gang issues. That individual would be unable to visit his or her child in Canada because of that. This is a very real situation today.

Maybe the member could provide comment as to why that is not fair.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I know there are cases like this in his own riding and that he is the immigration critic for his party. He therefore has a great deal of experience with these kinds of issues.

He just gave us an eloquent example. He mentioned of course some well-known individuals, but for everyone, section 42 of the current legislation stipulates that if the person accompanying you, for instance, your husband or wife, has a criminal record in the country of origin, you will be denied entry to Canada. Now Bill C-43 is making penalties even tougher. Indeed, even if the individual does not accompany you, but if they have committed any offences whatsoever, then quite simply, you will automatically be denied entry.

The member gave the example of visitor visas. This is even worse. I have been a member of this House since 2004 and have experienced other governments, including his party's government. I have never seen such a serious erosion of our immigration system and Canada's ability to welcome people. That is one major problem. Canada is refusing more and more visas, not only for the reasons the member mentioned, but for all kinds of reasons.

Sometimes even sports teams cannot enter Canada to take part in tournaments for all kinds of reasons. In my riding, I knew someone from Haiti. He was told that he could attend his mother's funeral in Haiti if he wanted to, but there was no guarantee that he would be allowed to come back. Bill C-43 will only make these situations worse.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House and speak about the important issue of immigration law, procedure and policy in this country.

Before I do, I want to point out the fantastic work done by my colleague from Surrey, British Columbia, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. She has done an outstanding job in showing Canadians a different and better way of making immigration policy in Canada, one that would streamline our system and make our immigration system more effective and efficient, but would retain the kind of compassion and respect for law and procedure that all Canadians cherish and have learned to recognize as a hallmark of our system.

The government of course controls the House agenda, particularly a government with a majority like the Conservatives currently enjoy. It gets to choose to bring forward whatever legislation it wants.

I had the privilege of being our party's immigration critic for a year. I represent the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, where the number of new Canadians is among the highest in the country. Well over 70% of the people in my riding represent first, second or third generation Canadians. My office deals with thousands of immigration cases every year. Accordingly, I have a representative sample of what the major issues and problems are in the immigration system.

It strikes me as interesting and fundamentally disappointing that of all the issues in the immigration system the government could be dealing with right now, it has chosen to focus on the deportation of certain permanent residents. I will be getting to what I think should be more important and pressing priorities in a moment.

The bill basically focuses on the important but relatively narrow issue of the procedures to be invoked in deporting people who may have committed crimes in this country or otherwise misrepresented themselves.

The NDP recognizes and supports the need for an effective and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. All citizens of this country would agree with that statement. We understand the need to monitor and modernize our occasionally slow system and support efforts to do so.

Nonetheless, this bill contains a mixture of good and troubling things. It would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. The bill would relieve the minister of the responsibility of examining humanitarian circumstances in certain cases. It would give the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exception to the family member of a foreign national who is declared inadmissible. Bill C-43 would change what constitutes the definition of serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility. It would increase the penalty for misrepresentation and would clarify that entering the country with the assistance of organized criminal activity does not on its own lead to inadmissibility.

Members can see that there is a mixture of some positive steps and some regressive and negative steps in the bill. It is a common feature of the government and the current Minister of Immigration in particular to constantly want to concentrate discretionary power in the sole hands of the minister. The government seems to want to continue to try to tighten and reduce and restrict the ability of judicial oversight or access to appeal of decisions often made by single people who are not accountable and who are often political appointees.

These are very troubling components of the Conservative government's approach to the legal system. It is not limited to immigration; we see this in the Conservatives' approach to crime in general.

Where the NDP parts ways with the Conservatives is that we believe that we can build and improve our immigration system without trampling on people's rights, without concentrating dangerous discretion and power in the sole hands of the Minister of Immigration, while preserving mechanisms that ensure effective review by courts and democratically elected representatives in Parliament and which build up sufficient flexibility to ensure that due consideration is always given to the unique circumstances of every case.

Canadians are rightly proud of our fair and compassionate system and they oppose the government's move toward a cold, meanspirited, ideological, inflexible and extreme position on immigration.

We have seen serious questions of constitutionality raised in the government's agenda. We know that the Justice Department gives advice to government ministers that they are likely pursuing ideologically based legislation that is unconstitutional, and the government says it does not care.

There have been three cases in the last four months where courts have struck down as unconstitutional violations of Canadians' charter rights, which have resulted from the government's blind ideological zeal to pass legislation that makes it look tough but is not backed up by evidence or respect for the courts or the constitution of this land.

An example of the government's meanspirited attitude, and I think one of the reasons this bill is before us today, is to change the channel on Canadians' abhorrence and widespread opposition to the government's taking away of the health care rights of refugee claimants in this country. Whenever the government gets in trouble, which it does quite often, it tries to put forward some tough on crime measure and tries to switch Canadians' attention to important but relatively minor issues in the grand scheme of things.

Here are the real problems with the immigration system that the government should be addressing in legislation before the House. There are huge waiting lists for every single type of immigration application, across the board with no exceptions. The fastest immigration application possible is generally when someone sponsors a spouse. When a Canadian marries someone who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and quite rightly wants to have their spouse with them, that process takes one to two years.

The current waiting list for someone to sponsor their parents is 10 to 13 years long. The government was so inept and incompetent in dealing with this issue, the only way it could handle it was to impose an absolute two-year freeze on any applications by any Canadian or permanent resident to sponsor their parents, period. That remains in force.

The employers of this country who want to bring skilled workers here routinely complain that it takes six months, one year, two years, three years, five years or seven years. Most of the time it takes so long to get a skilled worker here to satisfy their business needs that by the time they actually get the application approved it is too late.

The question of granting visitor visas is so important. The visitor visa system is absolutely and fundamentally broken in this country. The system is unjust and arbitrary, with no right of appeal. In my neck of the woods, where I have an extensive South Asian population, the refusal rate of visitor visas applications at one of the two visa offices in Chandigarh, India, is 53%. More than half of the applications in Chandigarh are rejected by that office.

What are these applications for? They are for people who want to come to Canada to attend weddings of their family members, births, anniversaries, graduations and visits so that brothers and sisters who have not seen each other for decades can reunite. These applications are for the very important events that Canadians cherish and want to share with their families. The government sits idly by while tens of thousands of visa applications are rejected every single year for no reason whatsoever.

Every member in the House knows that people come to their offices and tell them that they do not understand why their visa applications have been rejected by some faraway, anonymous person working in a consulate, with the applicant having no right of appeal and no way of accessing that person.

These are the kinds of issues the government should be tackling in the current immigration system. These are the broad, general, widespread issues and problems that Canadians face on a day-to-day basis.

I call on the government and the minister to quit playing politics with the immigration system and trying to look like they are tough on crime and actually solve the real problems of the immigration system and produce a modern immigration system that can quickly, efficiently and fairly process every application. There is no reason that any application across the board should not be processed from start to finish within 24 months, and why we should not have a fully computerized system where Canadians could have accountability from the bureaucrats making decisions.

That is the kind of legislation this side of the House would support. We call on the government to table such legislation in the House to make our immigration system modern and helpful, because it is so important to Canadians' futures and the economy of our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the name of Bill C-43, which in part states “foreign criminals act”.

I pose this question because I know that the member is fairly knowledgeable about other legislation passed by this particular minister. In my opinion, it really sends a very negative message about Canada being a tolerant society and so forth.

What we are really talking about is permanent residents, the 1.5 million permanent residents. Here, it was interesting that the member referred to the issue of priorities. One of the areas that we really need to look at in this regard is the processing of citizenships. What happens nowadays is that we have permanent residents who apply for citizenship and are waiting longer than two years before being granted their citizenship.

Could the member comment on that aspect? I ask because it is related to permanent residents. On the one hand, the government seems to want to punish permanent residents and on the other hand it is completely ignoring the need to speed up the processing so that permanent resident can in fact become citizens.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his hard work in this area. I have had the privilege and pleasure of sitting on committee with him for a period of time.

He raises an excellent issue. Let us look at citizenship. Obviously this bill deals with the removal of permanent residents. There is a further level of protection that people get once they obtain citizenship.

Let us isolate this one factor of how long it takes to get citizenship. The government finds it acceptable and believes there is no need to table legislation to speed up or provide administrative improvements to a process where it takes two years to get citizenship.

Let us imagine this were the private sector and someone went to a business to purchase a good or service and was told, yes, they would be provided with it but to come back in two years. Ten storey apartment buildings are built in two years, whereas this is simply about getting a piece of paper.

The government sits back with this kind of incompetent administrative inefficiency in place and is fooling no one. Canadians deserve better than this. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, we should be expediting and facilitating that process. There is no reason it should not be granted promptly, like it once was in this country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's comments, because I know that he is quite well versed in immigration issues.

I am sure the member would agree with me that there is no one in the House who is not supportive of the criminal aspect. We certainly need to make sure that we have proper laws and legislation in place. However, when looking at this type of legislation the government has put forward, it is obvious to us that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

I would also note here that the member is absolutely right about the judicial process and that providing arbitrary powers to the minister is the wrong way to go.

Maybe the member would like to comment on the Conrad Black issue, where the minister claimed that he wanted the matter dealt with independently. On the one hand the minister wants more power to intervene to deport criminals, but on the other hand he is saying that we need to have an independent process.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of very important points. I will just deal with one of them.

Canadians witness the spectre of gross hypocrisy when the government tries to be tough on crime, talking about deporting permanent residents who do not have Canadian citizenship. In some cases it is denying them a right of appeal if they have been convicted of a sentence of more than six months.

However, we watched Conrad Black, who is not a Canadian citizen because he renounced his citizenship, come back to this country after serving a four-year sentence for fraud. I find it interesting that the minister said that on hearing about Conrad Black's application, he immediately contacted immigration officials and advised them that they should be handling that at arm's length. Why was there a need to make that phone call? Would we not expect that to be the case?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by handing out compliments to my colleagues from Newton—North Delta and Saint-Lambert, who are doing absolutely remarkable work on issues that are not always easy. I will continue in the same vein as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway and talk about certain aspects of this bill. Speaking of compliments, we said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading—let the members opposite take note of this—because we want to study it further in committee.

I must say that, based on everything I have been hearing for the past few days, studying this in committee will be a daunting task. After a quick glance at this bill, it is easy to see that it is flawed. Imagine all the work an in-depth study will entail.

As an aside, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has many newcomers in his riding. My riding of Gatineau does not. It is a typical Quebec riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families. One might think that Gatineau does not have any problems regarding immigration or refugees, but my riding assistant might beg to differ. I tip my hat to her. Being so busy, I do not see much of her. Aline Séguin does absolutely incredible work on files that are not easy. When we get the chance to sit down together and talk, you would be surprised at the things that I learn. In my riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families, the majority of our files have to do with immigration, refugees, visas, etc. I hear terms that I am not necessarily familiar with and it is positively dizzying.

Over the years—and I already have quite a few under my belt—whether I was working in radio or television, I learned how easy it is to get people up in arms, to take extremely serious and human subjects and to completely and totally dehumanize them. It is easy to give certain impressions and to play on people's worries and fears.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North seems to be offended by the bill's short title. I am too. I always say that, when it comes to the members opposite, reality is in the details. The full title of the bill is An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I would like to emphasize the “refugee protection” part of the title because, when we look at the bill, the short title says something different. When I was studying law, I was taught that the short title was a way to shorten titles that were sometimes too long. In law, that is what the short title is. Yet, here, the short title often shows us the intention behind what the members opposite are constantly trying to achieve with their bills. In this case, it is informative because the short title really jumps off the page.

We are talking about An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One could wonder how a title like that could be shortened since it is already quite clear and concise. But, the Conservatives shortened the title to the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. When I saw that, I said to myself, “Wow! There are going to be plenty of problems with this.” What struck me, when I looked into the subject a little, was that it is difficult to determine how many cases this bill will affect. Why? The reason is that, when we are dealing with the members opposite, we are never able to access any information. It is like going to the dentist and trying to have a tooth extracted every time. And yet, this seems to be an extremely important and valid issue.

I always tell myself that, when we are in this impressive and imposing chamber, we have a role to play. I start thinking about how I am going to go back to the law faculty at the University of Ottawa just to tell them to forget this other principle of law that is taught, that it is not true and that the legislator speaks for the sake of speaking. In fact, I find that, often in this magnificent chamber, people speak for the sake of speaking. Laws are being created that leave me wondering what problem they address.

The government invents problems in order to draft bills that it can show off to people on the 6 o’clock and 11 o’clock news. It is really sad, because this perpetuates prejudices that are so easy to transmit.

When I was a little girl, my parents told me Canada was a beautiful country. They infused me with pride in Canada from my youngest days. Our parents were Franco-Ontarian, but we, the children, were born in Quebec. We took full advantage of our beautiful Canadian federation. My father often told us that the beauty of Canada lay in its three founding peoples. Of course he meant the first nations, Quebec and Canada.

Another element of this beauty is the perception people have of Canada as a land of welcome; a land that takes care of its citizens, of course, but is also concerned with what happens elsewhere. I am not trying to make everyone’s hearts bleed, but everyone knows that. My father always said that Canada welcomed everyone with open arms. I grew up with that concept and that belief. In the last 10 or 15 years, a harder tone has crept into such talk.

Perhaps the media are a little bit to blame. Television news is now on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the ratings wars, news organizations often work very hastily and try to find news items that will shock and provoke. What could be easier than to use another human being badly and keep him down? That is what happens when we talk about immigrants and refugees. At least that is so in my humble opinion, which no one is obliged to share.

When I was young, I had some problems understanding the nuances concerning refugees.

What I understand now is that while an immigrant makes the decision to come here, a refugee has no choice. The refugee is seeking a land that will welcome him, because if he stays where he is, he may be killed. As we begin, can we keep this basic concept in mind?

That said, there always are good people and those who are not so good. Like Jack Layton, I have a tendency to remain an eternal optimist and be positive. I tell myself that most people are fundamentally good. I still believe that, although it is sometimes difficult when I see the morning news. Anyway, in my heart, I still believe it.

The bills introduced by the members opposite always try to twist concepts that otherwise would be positive and humane. These bills are making our society one that trusts almost nothing and no one. They leave the very disagreeable impression that on every street corner lurks a criminal refugee who is the worst person ever born, but luckily, here is the great Captain Canada, also known as the Minister of Immigration. He will ensure that our society can live without fear, because he will be able to send that bad person back where he came from, no matter what will happen to him there.

This bill, like many others, worries me greatly. My only warning is that many powers are being taken away from the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and given to the minister. I like the minister, but I would not give him—or any other minister—carte blanche.

Thus, we must not think that this bill will be taking away all recourse. In fact, it creates tons of recourse. The party across the way, by creating or passing this kind of measure, will ensure that arguments will no longer be made on appeal and that they will no longer concern the facts of the case. With my crystal ball, I predict that there will be many instances of recourse to get a judicial review of the minister’s decisions. It will all serve to open another Pandora’s box—and the results may be nasty.

So, once again, I hope that they will listen to what is said in committee, that the committee is able to do its work thoroughly, and that the members opposite will stop thinking that a bill is good just because they wrote it.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was a bit shocked. I have been listening to the New Democrats talk about minor crimes or issues being minor in particular circumstances, such as anything less than six months as far as the punishment goes. Could the member clarify what “minor” means in her submissions?

My understanding, being a criminal lawyer for some period of time, is that we are talking about minor offences such as assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, and break and entry. These are violent offences and Canadians tell me that they expect us to put people in jail for these offences. They do not expect those people to be allowed into Canada in the first place, and if they do commit these offences they expect that they would be immediately taken out of the country and not have the privilege of Canadian citizenship.

Is this what the New Democrats mean by “minor offences”: robbery, rape and sexual assault?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is “I rest my case.” I think the hon. member did not hear the main point of my speech. In any case, I do appreciate that a Conservative member has finally risen in the House to at least try to demonstrate some interest in Bill C-43.

That said, I would say no, that is not what I mean by minor. We know that the Conservatives are always trying to make people believe that the official opposition wants to protect pedophiles, bank robbers, and the like.

Here we are talking about making changes concerning people who have been found guilty of an offence subject to a two-year sentence but who had certain rights, and reducing that to six months. I would like to reply to the hon. member that six-month sentences are given for shoplifting. Some minors make mistakes. Some people, when they are young, make certain mistakes and, with a good rehabilitation system, turn into very good citizens.

So, would the other side please stop using the most extreme cases and trying to shove them down our throats, and stop trying to pretend we are saying things we are not.

No one in this house wants to see Canada open its arms to hardened and dangerous criminals and allow them to stay here. That is not the issue. The issue is to strike a balance in this bill, as we would like to see in all things.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that particular point. In real terms, imagine a person who came to Canada 15 or 20 years ago. The person is now a permanent resident but has not acquired citizenship. Maybe other members of the family have, but that person has not.

If this legislation passes, the government would say that if the person were caught with six plants of marijuana in the house, he or she would be deported with no appeal. It does not mean the entire family would be. The three or four children who might have been born here in Canada or the spouse who may be a Canadian citizen would not be deported. However, that person would be deported and the reason would be that he or she has six plants of marijuana.

These are the types of things that would take place. Could the member provide comment on whether that is just punishment for a person who would be caught in that sort of predicament?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was saying to the other member before the question.

There are so many cases. I worry that with all the work that was done on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, new minimum sentences were created for some offences which, even the members opposite will admit, are not as serious as robbery with violence, armed robbery or major fraud.

Situations may arise like the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North just described. They are not rare. Many people have not applied for citizenship but, after making some mistakes and serving their sentences, become model citizens. They just have not made it official.

So all kinds of situations can happen. Once again, I want to ask the government a question. How many cases is this based on? Exactly who are the targets?

We must be able to make decisions based on the evidence. This government, which was elected on a promise of transparency, continues to show a lack of transparency. How ironic.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what else is there to say after the hon. member for Gatineau summed up the issue so well? I will say that it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in today's debate.

First, I want to stress that, yes, we do share the government's concern over serious crimes committed by individuals who are not Canadian citizens. However, we think it is just as normal to share some real concerns about Bill C-43.

This bill will prevent permanent residents and illegal immigrants who are sentenced to a jail term of six months or more in Canada from appealing their deportation order. The individuals convicted would then be sent back to their country 12 to 15 months sooner than if they could have pleaded their case before the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, only immigrants sentenced to more than two years in a penitentiary are deprived of that right. According to the Department of Immigration, over 2,400 convicted individuals are currently appealing to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The new rule would eliminate half of those cases.

The bill includes other changes to the act. For example, those who are inadmissible for serious reasons will no longer be allowed to apply to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, the Minister of Immigration would be given a new power. That is indeed the case. Another power is given to the minister. Obviously, he must have felt that all the powers given to him under Bill C-31 were not enough.

And now this government goes so far as to deny permanent resident status to an individual, for reasons of public interest. We can be sure that the courts will have their hands full, even though that is already the case.

Finally, under Bill C-43, a foreign national would also be denied entry to Canada if a member of his family is denied entry for reasons related to security, organized crime or war crimes, even if the individual who committed the crime does not accompany that person.

The immigration minister said that his Bill C-43 seeks to restructure the deportation of convicted criminals by restricting their access to the appeal process. The minister indicated that, currently, many immigrants who have been convicted of crimes can avoid deportation because they were sentenced to a prison sentence of less than two years. The term “many” should be put in perspective because, according to Statistics Canada, in 2010-11, 86% of all prison sentences were of six months or less. We want facts because facts show the real picture.

As I already mentioned, this bill seems to follow the Conservative government's alarming pattern of giving greater discretion to ministers in matters of immigration and public safety. The high degree of discretion that Bill C-43 grants to the minister with respect to issuing or revoking a declaration, which would prevent a foreign national from becoming a permanent resident for a maximum period of 36 months, seems to go too far and must be clarified. To justify the discretionary powers that he would be given, the minister said, “We just do not have the time.”

Unfortunately, a little bit of time is what some immigrants need sometimes, if only to fill out all the forms and paperwork, to ask questions and make telephone calls to find out where a certain document has to be submitted and by when. Furthermore, massive cuts are being made to Citizenship and Immigration's client service unit. It would not be very difficult for the minister to give them a little more time. It would be the least he could do.

Michael Bossin, an immigration lawyer in Ottawa, says that, in his experience, jail time for these young offenders teaches them a lesson, they get a job, become responsible, build a family and no longer pose a danger to the public. According to Mr. Bossin, with a stay of removal, a young immigrant reacts as though he were on probation and often changes his conduct. Mr. Bossin believes that the changes to the new law could result in the export of Canada's social problems and will not deal with the underlying causes of criminality.

Once again, this government relies on clichés far too often and it does not address the source of the problem. That is what it should be doing instead.

In addition, Mr. Bossin believes that people with a mental illness would suffer undue hardship if they were deported to a country where they are often stigmatized and punished because of their condition. On that topic, Ms. Lash, an immigration and refugee lawyer with community legal services in Ottawa, says that those changes will affect many individuals with psychiatric problems.

According to lawyer Joel Sandaluk, if Bill C-43 becomes law, it is likely to divide families. He states that this is going to destroy families who have been in Canada for a long time and that, if the parents or other family members are deported from Canada, this will do irreparable damage. The damage will be irreparable because we are talking about the lives of human beings. We must never forget that.

In addition, Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that Bill C-43 raises constitutional issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers across Canada are speaking up for the rights of Canadian immigrants, many of whom came to Canada at a young age. They were raised and educated here, they started families here and they started businesses here. Many companies in Quebec City were founded by immigrants who have received major awards for entrepreneurship. By the way, I congratulate them and I am proud of them.

The government's proposal is clumsy, because it is likely to have a significant impact on immigrants who do not have Canadian citizenship. In fact, the legislation will even apply to permanent residents who have been in Canada for decades.

As justification for this bill, the government has given examples of cases where immigrants have committed serious crimes and then used the system to delay their deportation for years. Those examples show flaws in the system, I agree. It is important to study the matter. We need to know what those flaws are and make sure that any gaps are plugged rather than resorting to stereotypes.

The NDP wants to move this bill forward in committee. Despite the bill's clear deficiencies, we want to hear experts give their opinions on the matter so that reasonable solutions to the problem can be found. New Democrats believe that it is possible to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our system of appeals, and to do so without trampling on human rights. The NDP also supports those newcomers who want the government to focus on improving the fairness and the speed of the immigration system for the great majority of people who do not commit crimes and who live by the rules.

To conclude, this is one more bill where the Conservative government tells itself that there is nothing finer than to use its majority to push bills through and to steamroller over the opposition and especially over experts in the field. I have quoted a number of them here who confirm that we absolutely must take longer with, and go deeper into, social problems. This bill is oversimplified. We are showing prejudice and a lack of class in dealing with our immigrants. They are here among us and they function very well. In some cases, they are extraordinary people. I have met them, and frankly, they are models for our society.

I feel that it would be a real shame to remove these models, who are teaching our younger people profound and universal Canadian values. It would be a real shame to send these people back with their rights trampled on in this way.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for a very good NDP speech. It was one of the best NDP speeches I have heard for some time in that it was an NDP speech. The speech said very much about the offender's rights and that some of the offenders the hon. member knew were model citizens. It said nothing about the victims. It was a wonderful NDP speech. It was light on victims and heavy on the offender.

When I go out into my riding, I have individuals come up to me and say that they read in the newspaper that so-and-so, who came from another country and immigrated here and has committed armed robbery, is now going through an appeal. They want to know why do we not just send the person back home. That is what we hear in our ridings.

We hear of people like Gheorghe Capra who has over 60 counts of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud and obstructing a peace officer. He got a sentence ranging from two days to two years less a day. He was asked to leave. The removal order was for September 2003 and he began the appeal process.

The bill would change that. People would need to be on their best behaviour when they come to our country and they are not citizens. They would need to keep clean, be productive and become part of what we expect here in Canada, a multicultural rich heritage, of which we want them to be part, but if they become a criminal they will go home.

Why does the member not care about the victim--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Québec.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, who still dared give me a compliment. If he did compliment me, it was because I made an effort here in this House to qualify what I say. I do not want to resort to clichés.

I had an absolutely wonderful conversation with a taxi driver, and that conversation gave him a lot to think about. When we open the morning newspaper, we sometimes read about an awful case, a really dreadful story or tragedy. It might be about any kind of crime. At some point, the crime is no longer about any particular race, gender or age. It is quite simply a despicable crime.

I said in my speech that this bill will not change things dramatically, because there are not many cases where it will apply. So this is a bill that, unfortunately, all too often is about prejudice. But I do not want us to fall prey to such prejudice. I really want to plug the gaps where they are. I do not want to use a bazooka to kill a fly. It is ridiculous, to be honest. At that point, we would destroy everything just to make sure we protect ourselves and ensure that the safety of Canadians is not at stake.

It is important to qualify one's statements. I think that the people who can do this—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go back to questions and comments, I would remind all hon. members that in the five minute question period there is time for about two questions and about two answers, which means about a minute each. If members pay attention, the Chair usually gives you an indication as you are approaching the end of your time. If you ignore that, the Chair will cut you off and we will move on to the next person.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the fact that there are over 1.5 million permanent residents here in Canada and a vast majority of them are outstanding citizens of this country. The government needs to be reminded of that fact when it labels legislation “foreign criminals” and the message it is trying to send.

Yes, the Conservatives want to come across as being tough on crime, but they are also sending a very negative message to those 1.5 million permanent residents who are living here in Canada and calling Canada home.

I am wondering if the member might want to respond to that aspect of the targeting that is taking place by the government.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Indeed, everyone is for virtue. Everyone is for sharing the same values. And that is the problem. This Conservative government resorts to clichés far too often. It exploits that, which does not make sense. That is exactly the problem with this bill.

The Conservatives' arguments are often crazy. I would just like to say that the NDP is not in favour of criminals. It is not in favour of pedophiles. You would have to be completely nuts to think that. I will never accept that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

I am an immigrant to this country and I am thankful for the opportunities I have had here. Many other members in the House are also immigrants to Canada.

I listened to the debate this morning. The member from Winnipeg North is absolutely right. The vast majority of the immigrants who come here, at one point or another, are good citizens. They contribute to the economy, the culture and make good citizens.

I am also a father of a young girl and boy. Therefore, for Conservatives to constantly ask about which side the New Democrats are on when it comes to rapists and murderers, as a father, I know which side I am on.

We agree in principle with Bill C-43, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We agree that there are some good aspects to the bill. However, there are many holes in it and we need to be look at those. Therefore, we will support sending it to committee so it can look at some of these issues.

One issue I have with the bill is it concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. Basically the minister can declare a foreign national admissible for up to 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public consideration. The minister may also at any time revoke or shorten the effective period of declaration of admissibility.

I have trouble with the word “opinion”. What is that opinion? How does the minister form that opinion? Are there criteria set as to how that opinion is formed? It is very troubling.

The second component I also have trouble with is the change to what constitutes a serious criminality for the purposes of access to an appeal of determination of inadmissibility. Previously, a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two or more years constituted an automatic stripping of permanent residency or a temporary resident's right to an appeal at the immigration appeal division. However, Bill C-43 would revoke the right to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility where there would be a conviction of six months or more.

We talked about minor offences and young people this morning. There may be young people who have committed a robbery and are put in prison. Their whole family may be here and they would have no right to appeal to get a fair hearing. They may be able to reform and become productive members of society, yet they will be sent back to a country with which they may not be familiar. Therefore, I have a problem with that.

The bigger issue the Conservatives are trying to avoid is the whole immigration system that we have in place. It was broken before. The Liberals had a chance to fix it for many years. We have seen lineups and wait times being increased for family reunification for spouses and for skilled workers. That was under the Liberals. Then the Conservatives said that they would fix it and make it better. What I have seen in the last six years is the dismantling of the immigration system, which is broken, and that is a bigger issue. They are not fixing the immigration system so it is fair, effective, efficient and serves the needs of Canadians.

We are all familiar with the fact that Canada has an aging population and we do need immigrants to fill the jobs that would help the government bring in revenues so we can provide services such as education, medicare and other services on which Canadians depend. Yet that does not concern the Conservatives. They are avoiding the whole issue of fixing the system so it is effective, efficient and is better for our economy.

I will give some examples. A young husband and a wife came into my office a few months ago and I had a chance to sit down with them. They had gone to another country looking for a caregiver. They interviewed a person who they felt could provide child care for their daughter. They came back to Canada and wanted to submit an application. The husband was a businessperson and the wife was a teacher for the local school board. They wanted their daughter to be taken care of at home by a live-in caregiver from another country who they would sponsor. When they submitted their application, they found out that it would take four years before they could get the application reviewed by our embassy.

Therefore, if one were to have a three or four year old child, he or she would have to wait four years to bring someone to Canada to provide child care services. The couple I spoke of are productive members of our society, a teacher and a businessperson, who are providing jobs in our community, yet one of them will have to stay home to take care of their daughter. That was their predicament. That is not right. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed. That is what they told me.

There is another case of a woman who had stage four breast cancer and was trying to sponsor her mother to come here from Romania to spend the last four or five months with her so she could be surrounded by family. Her mother had come to Canada previously on a temporary visa and had returned. This woman wanted to spend time with her mother. Because of the present rules, her mother was denied a temporary visa. The system is broken. Her mother had already come to Canada and returned, yet she was denied a visa to return to be with her daughter during her last days and take care of her. The daughter was willing to provide financial support and health care insurance for her mother.

Another example is that of a dying father who requested that his son come and visit him during his last days in hospital. He was denied a visa to come to Canada. When the father died, the son again applied for a TRV, a temporary resident visa, to come to Canada to see his father for the last time.

These are the kinds of problems that the government is failing to fix. If there were—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the last few minutes of this member's speech there has been no relevance to the bill at hand. We are talking about deporting foreign criminals. He is talking about a lot of sad stories, and we understand that, but it has no relevance to the matter at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford is correct that members are required to speak to the matter before the House. However, it is also the practice of this place that significant latitude is given to members.

Therefore, I would go back to the hon. member for Surrey North. He has about 30 seconds left.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is relevant because the Conservatives have brought in a bill that addresses a small component of the Immigration Act. Although we are supportive of that principle, the bigger issue is that the immigration system is broken and they are failing to fix it.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on what the member for Crowfoot talked about. I did not hear one mention of victims. This legislation talks about having a mechanism in place so when people come to Canada, they respect our laws and if they do not do that then, simply put, they get sent back.

Does it matter to the hon. member that criminals who get deported should get deported?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last year and a half since I have been here I have heard the Conservatives talk about how they stand up for victims. The fact is they are not standing up for victims when it comes to providing compensation to them or taking care of their families. This legislation would create more victims. If one family member is deported for a minor crime, it will create more victims.

If the Conservatives want to stand up for victims, they should be increasing funding and investing in preventative programs that would eliminate crime in our society.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, would the member for Surrey North like to comment on the fact that this legislation talks about foreign criminals? Members opposite talk about foreign criminals as people who come to Canada and commit crimes so therefore they should be sent back “home”.

A lot of people who are in Canada as permanent residents came here when they were one, two or three years old. They could be here for high school. They could be spending all of their lives here. Their home is actually Canada. If they come to a place where we promote the rule of law, we would expect the right of appeal, et cetera to be available to them. If they commit a crime and they get six months or more, they are entitled to the rehabilitation provided by the penal system.

Does my colleague think they can be considered foreigners who should be sent back home? Is that a realistic way to look at our immigration policy on how we should treat people who come to our country?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have trouble with the title of the bill, which is the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

We have heard in the House that this is about permanent residents. These are people we have admitted to our country. I was one of them at one point. We have 1.5 million permanent residents in Canada and for one reason or another they have not taken out their Canadian citizenship.

With respect to the issue that my good colleague talks about, when these members are part of our society and they commit a minor crime, they should have the opportunity to appeal. These young people should also have the opportunity to rehabilitate in our society. Individuals may be separated from their family and may be deported to a country with which they have no ties.

We need to look at providing opportunities in cases where a second look is warranted.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North keeps saying that somehow members on this side of the House are saying that permanent residents are criminals and that this legislation would target permanent residents. We on this side of the House do not believe that permanent residents are a bunch of criminals who are going to be deported. The only ones slandering permanent residents here are those members and the member for Winnipeg North.

I want to know if they want to apologize to the 1.5 million permanent residents in our country who do a darn good job contributing to this country.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. Permanent residents are contributing to our country, both economically and culturally.

I agree with my fellow Liberal colleague who talked about the 1.5 million permanent residents, who are part of this society. The Conservatives are looking at a small number of cases involving people who have committed a serious crime and who should be deported. We all agree on that. However, they are targeting those 1.5 million.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouth.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill we are looking into today. It is, by all accounts, a bill to allow Canada to deport non-citizens who commit serious offences. This, in itself, is an eminently supportable goal, but it does not fully describe the entirety of Bill C-43.

As my colleague from Newton—North Delta, the New Democratic critic for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, has indicated, New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsible judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens. I agree that all Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent crimes in our communities. I believe it is also important for us to note that the overwhelming majority of newcomers to this country are actually law-abiding and follow the rules. Those newcomers also support the broader concept that is the stated intention of Bill C-43.

We cannot mix up the facts as we consider how best to weed out a small group of offenders who are no more a reflection of any community they come from than any domestic criminals are to their own home towns. We can see there is agreement on intent, but it is not a free pass for the government to do whatever it wants. New Democrats would like to see amendments to the bill that would allow us to arrive at a piece of legislation we can support. Ultimately, our criticism of the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relates to a handful of issues, not the least of which are the concentration of power in the minister and the abandonment of an appeal process.

New Democrats do not support slamming the door on an appeal process, just as we do not support granting the minister unilateral powers to stop a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on what is being called public policy considerations. Surely we can agree that is a vague and broad definition.

We can still hear the peanut gallery on the other side.

In fact, the manner in which this bill concentrates more power in the minister seems to indicate some kind of disbelief in the system that is in place, some kind of a belief that what the process really needs is a sheriff. In Bill C-43 we see that. Not only can the minister declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations, but the minister may also, at any time—and I repeat, at any time—revoke or shorten the effective period of a declaration of inadmissibility.

This may sound like jargon, but there is a bigger problem at play that others will recognize, and that is the disturbing trend we see from the government, the trend of concentrating more power in the hands of individual ministers. This arbitrary power is granted at the expense of transparency and clearly defined policies that can be consistently administered.

Members may recall that this is one of the criticisms that was central to the changes to the Fisheries Act in the last budget. Those changes gave the minister discretionary power to determine whether a fish species was important enough to warrant protection. This bill continues that unfortunate trend. It is a pattern of behaviour that puts the government and its decisions behind closed doors. It makes our government more opaque and quite the opposite of the transparent and accountable administration Canadians desire and were promised. However, there is good news. This is something that can be fixed. If there is a willingness, there is a way.

Ministerial discretion can be replaced with clear and effective guidelines that can be publicly administered, which is something we hope the government will consider. It is something we know that Canadians want and will support.

What is more than a little strange is the way in which Bill C-43 would give the minister discretionary powers to act in the manner of the sheriff I just described. However, at same time, it would relieve that same person from similar responsibilities related to appropriate discretionary powers. We see the call for the minister to be given the power to declare a foreign national inadmissible, but in those cases where the minister is actually required to use extraordinary powers to ensure the system is performing to its potential, the Conservatives are begging off that part of the job.

As we know, the current arrangement means that on the request of a foreign national or even on the minister's own initiative, the minister is required to examine the circumstances of a person who is considered inadmissible on grounds of security, humanitarian or international rights violations, or organized criminality. In those instances where the minister feels a compelling case has been made, he or she can grant an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and take into consideration the interests of a child directly affected.

My colleague alluded to this a while ago with respect to children who came here with their family and may not have received Canadian citizenship. If they are permanent residents and have been here since the age of six months, or whatever age, and all of a sudden they find themselves in a dilemma such as this, the minister would then be able to say that they would have to go home to a land where they have never been. The new arrangement would relieve the minister of this obligation altogether. It is as if the Conservatives cannot fathom that there would ever be circumstances where an appeal might be legitimate or even successful.

Let us look at our own criminal justice system. We have had people criminalized and put in jail, but when they have appealed the decision, and sometimes it has taken years, the government has had to actually apologize for that, which is why the appeal process is important.

However, without appeal, it is a black and white view that does not match the reality of the world. It assumes that there will never be a miscarriage of justice, when we know full well that the potential for mistakes is always present, which is why we have appeal processes in the first place.

To recap, the minister wants to be able to act in a decisive manner on a case-by-case basis if he feels it is warranted. On the other hand, the Conservatives are asking to be excused from the responsibility of the office in terms of adjudicating what is basically an appeal process. What we have here is an appeal for both a concentration of power and the removal of a check and balance function. Again, it is about transparency and accountability. We need a check and balance function.

For New Democrats, these items need to be fixed. We have additional concerns with Bill C-43, which relate to changes in the definition of serious criminality as well as the intention to accept the decision of foreign courts that may not operate at the same high standard as ours do in Canada.

As a bit of an aside, I am sure there are many professionals struggling for recognition of their foreign credentials who are looking on with a sense of disbelief. When it comes to branding someone a criminal, the Conservative government is willing to accept the standards of courts from countries whose professional credentials are more vigorously challenged. I am sure that point is not entirely lost on people who are struggling on that front.

To be clear, the larger goal of Bill C-43 is not without its merit. New Democrats think this is a case where we can tighten things up. We could take the bill to committee, roll up our sleeves and do the work to ensure Canada comes out of the process with a better Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, most of us in this place know that there are bigger challenges that we must address as well. We hear it from our constituents and we see it in our offices.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am little confused with what I am hearing from my colleague across the way. I hear the NDP saying that the Prime Minister is very controlling, does not allow any latitude, does not allow for decision-making, yet in the same breath, the Prime Minister is being condemned for being too loose, for leaving everything open and the minister is making all the decisions. I wonder which way we are looking at that.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not particularly say that the Prime Minister was controlling, but obviously based on the acts Conservatives are taking it is obvious that they are controlling. Let us see who are really being victimized, for example: immigrants, seniors, aboriginal people and students. These are the people who are being victimized by the government. If Conservatives could have tied the words “victims”, “offenders” or “crime” to their changes to OAS, I think they would have done it.

Let us look at the real picture, which is that the services that could help people make sure they have a good start here in Canada with respect to immigration, to keep them out of trouble, to make sure things are going smoothly, are the very programs the government is cutting. So even in places like Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, we are struggling with reduced services from the federal government, which includes the closure of the citizenship offices. Those offices were in Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay and were all offices that people from different corners of my constituency would have gone to for assistance. Guess where they are coming now? They are coming to our offices because those services are not available in northern Ontario anymore.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a victim here. Many would argue that the government is attempting to label those 1.5 million permanent residents who call Canada their home. Many of these individuals have family members abroad. Quite often a child or a young adult leaves a country, whether it is the Philippines or India, and they arrive in Canada. One of the things this legislation is proposing to do is to deny people the opportunity to visit Canada if their spouse is not of good character. They themselves could be of great character and good health, with no risk of not returning, but they will be denied because their spouse in good health, even though they have a child here in Canada.

Does the member recognize this as something that is just not fair and in the best interests of public policy?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. It is a government that is really creating a crisis out of a very small number of people. We are willing to work with the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament is here for a reason, which is to make sure that, when legislation is put place, it responds to the needs of Canadians, to the needs of people.

In that respect, we need to make sure that we do not see ourselves before the courts, that we are not causing more havoc to laws in Canada that are quite problematic. This is about working together to fix a piece of legislation.

As we said, we believe this has a good intent, but at the same time there are some changes needed. What we have seen over and over again is very little flexibility on the side of the government to want to improve legislation, to ensure it is not to the detriment of people. That puts people in a really bad way and it is not a fair way.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I want to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who just spoke. I could feel how passionate she is about this issue.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton—North Delta who has played such an important role in the House on immigration and refugee issues. I thank her for her fine work on that.

The bill addresses the issue of people who come to Canada and commit crimes. The timing of the bill is interesting, because it comes on the heels of some very serious, difficult and controversial changes in immigration and refugee policy that have touched many members of my own community in Parkdale—High Park. I am speaking specifically about the refugee reform bill, Bill C-31, and also about cuts to refugee health care.

Part of my community is a place where many newcomers first come to Canada. We have seen waves of refugees come from different parts of the world. There are many religious institutions and places of worship that are amongst the oldest in the city of Toronto, because my riding is the first stopping off point for many newcomers to Canada. We have the oldest continuously functioning Jewish schul. We have one of the oldest Hindu temples. We have religious institutions of various denominations.

More recently we have many refugees coming from places such as Tibet and Hungary, as well as other places in Eastern Europe. Something that has been very controversial in our community, and we have joined health professionals in opposing, are the changes to deny some refugee claimants health care benefits.

I have seen, first-hand, people in my community who are directly affected by these changes. It has not been helpful that certain communities, such as the Roma community, have been demonized by the government. It creates a situation that is unhealthy for them here, even prior to the status of their refugee claim being assessed.

It is interesting that the Conservatives are now introducing a bill to get the immigration discussion back into a territory where they feel more comfortable, and that is the tough-on-crime approach. I see that in the political context of dealing with refugee and immigration issues.

The bill would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister in terms of discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. He can declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if in his or her opinion it is justified by public policy considerations. The bill also relieves the minister of the responsibility to consider humanitarian and compassionate situations such as taking into consideration the interests of a child. The minister no longer has to consider humanitarian concerns at all.

It also gives the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exemption to the family member of a foreign national that is “inadmissible” if the minister believes it is against the national interest, specifically examining national security or public safety.

There are also changes in the bill about what constitutes serious criminality. Previously a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two years or more constituted an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal. This would revoke that right with a conviction of six months or more, which has to be explored and investigated as to what kinds of crimes we are looking at and who would be most likely to be affected.

It would increase the penalties for misrepresentation, taking them from two years to five years for inadmissibility for permanent resident status. One thing that is very positive in the bill is that it would clarify that if someone enters Canada as part of an organized criminal activity, that on its own would not constitute inadmissibility, which may be important to people who are trafficked into Canada through some kind of criminal organization.

While I believe Canadians are legitimately concerned about the issue of non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, we have a concern about concentrating more arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of newcomers to Canada, and I have direct experience with many newcomers in my community, are law-abiding people who do not commit crimes. We believe the Conservatives ought to spend more time and effort ensuring these people are treated fairly and are reunited with their families as quickly as possible.

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. We cannot take someone such as Conrad Black and welcome him back to Canada with open arms and claim, as the minister did, that this was independent of politics and handled by bureaucrats, and then introduce a law like this which clearly would concentrate more discretionary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Suddenly he seems to have a conversion on the road to Damascus and wants to deport convicted criminals instead of welcoming them with open arms. That is quite a change. However, there are a number of other ways the minister could help, such as maybe no longer appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board and having a fairer process there.

While the issue of criminal activity and ensuring we are not getting the wrong people in Canada is important, we believe there are concerns that are not being taken into account. Mental health issues are a big area of concern. In my communities and in communities across the country, there are people who come here as refugees from war-torn countries. They do not get the kind of mental health support they need. We know there is a disproportionate representation of people who are mental health survivors in the prison system who desperately need help and would benefit greatly from help here in Canada, including many refugees whom deportation will not help.

Canadians would see people from war-torn countries being disproportionately rejected from Canada under the bill. Mental health is clearly a huge issue, as is the lack of ability to appeal. That is also left up to the discretion of the minister. The lack of appeal is something that has been criticized in other immigration initiatives by the government and is certainly something that I would question here.

While of course we support ensuring that Canadians are protected from criminals who would take advantage of our immigration and refugee system and come to this country and commit crimes, there are problems with the bill that need serious discussion, investigation and change in order to do the job that it is meant to do.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was talking about concerns with increasing ministerial discretion. It raises an interesting point. I am sure my friend is aware that in 2011 the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion asking the minister to stop two people from coming to Canada due to their comments encouraging hate and violence against women and homosexuals. Unfortunately, there was no ability for the minister to stop those people from coming into the country. The bill would address that issue.

Do the New Democrats agree or disagree with Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly? Do they think that people who promote hate and violence should be allowed into Canada? If they do not think they should be coming into Canada, why will they not stand and support the legislation to give the minister the power to do exactly that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not read the bill in question because it is not a bill that has been before the House. Obviously as champions of human rights who work constantly against racism and sexist behaviour, we support those goals.

What is a concern is concentrating discretionary power in the hands of the minister through the bill and casting a net so wide that it has unintended consequences.

Let me just give one more example quickly. Suppose someone comes to this country as an infant, the child of immigrants or refugees, grows up in this country, spends their life here and, as an adult, commits a crime. However, he or she has never taken up Canadian citizenship. It seems extreme that the person could potentially be sent back to a country where they have no connection, no family and no relationship because they have served a sentence of six months in a Canadian jail.

I would question the broad net of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, most people recognize that there is a difference in the types of crimes that are committed. This goes to the member's response to the last question, which was in regard to crimes that would ultimately lead to a conviction for which a person could serve a sentence of six months or more.

When we say a sentence of six months, we are not just talking about jail time. That could be part of a conditional sentence and so forth. It is just a summary conviction that ultimately leads to a minimum of six months.

We just passed legislation not that long ago that if a person is caught with six plants of marijuana, he or she would go to jail for six months. That would mean that if a person was here for many years, as the hon. member pointed out, 10 or 15 years plus, and even if they have a family, that person could actually be deported because they had six plants of marijuana. It is not rape or murder or something of that nature, but it is a violation of the law because the law says we cannot have six plants.

I wonder if the hon. member could provide comment on whether she sees that as justice being served in that situation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is in keeping with what I have been describing, which is that reducing the rule from two years to six months could capture far too many people in this wide net. It could include someone who might be a first-time offender, someone who has lived here all his or her life, or someone who has a mental illness.

It could be someone who just made a terrible mistake and who would benefit from rehabilitation and who would benefit from perhaps other opportunities and could then become a productive and positive member of Canada. However, one stupid mistake, and as my colleague has indicated, a crime of growing some marijuana plants, could land them in this situation.

It seems overly harsh and overly discretionary to have this kind of consequence for that crime.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43. It is legislation that deserves consideration but, like much that comes from the government, it has significant flaws.

When members on the other side talk about the bill and ask us whether we want criminals who should be deported to get deported, the answer to that rhetorical question is yes. No one is opposed to that. That is why we are actually supporting the bill in principle. Certain people who come to Canada, commit violent crimes, abuse the appeal process and who manage to stay here for many years ought to be deported.

Therefore, the answer to the rhetorical question of whether criminals who should be deported get deported, is absolutely yes. Is this the way to do it? Are the measures in the bill balanced, fair and reasonable and do they comply with the rule of law?

The government claims that Canada is a champion of the rule of law throughout the world. Is it reasonable for a rule of law to have such a broad category that says that anyone who may get a six month sentence for a first offence, after having been in the country for 15, 20 or 25 years and having been here since he or she was a child or an infant, should get deported to his or her so-called home? The home of someone who has been here since the age of 2 and is now 25 is Canada. The fact is that for the 1.5 million people who are here as permanent residents, who have been granted the right to live here as permanent residents and have the right to obtain citizenship once they apply, this is their home.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about a person being convicted of growing six marijuana plants. That person is treated as a serious criminal and is subject to deportation to the country of his or her birth without any right of appeal. I do not think that complies with the rule of law. In fact, a number of lawyers who have talked about this suggested that this would not pass with the courts and that it would face a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Some hon. member]

Bring it on.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Bring it on, someone says. The Conservatives want to keep the courts and lawyers busy challenging their legislation. One would think they would desire to have legislation that meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that does the job it is supposed to do.

A member from the opposite side raised another aspect of this a couple of times. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park has quite ably talked about the potential for arbitrary decisions and broad categories. There are broad categories in the bill but then the Conservatives mention specific examples and ask if we do no agree that this should happen.

The member for Brampton West said that his party wants to prohibit the entry of someone who promotes hatred and asks why do we not support a measure that would do exactly that. Well, it does not do exactly that. It says, in very broad language, that the minister would have the power to deny entry to anyone for 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

It might have the effect of allowing that particular thing to happen as part of this broad category, but if what the Conservatives want to do is prevent people coming to Canada on a temporary visit to promote hatred, then they should say that they are going to give the minister the power to prevent people from coming to Canada to promote hatred. If they want to do exactly that, they should do exactly that. Public policy is a very broad consideration. There is that famous legal case in England that said that making decisions in the courts based on public policy considerations was an unruly horse. In other words, one could not control what would be contained under that consideration.

Public policy considerations are so broad that they give the minister almost absolute discretion. That is where we think this bill goes overboard. It gives too much discretion and arbitrary power to the minister. We want something that is flexible and something that will work to ensure we do not allow people into Canada who commit serious crimes, who are unworthy of continuing in Canada and who we would never allow to become citizens if they applied.

We are talking about criminals who have been convicted of significant offences. If they applied for citizenship, which they are entitled to do as permanent residents at a certain point, would they be given citizenship? The answer to that question is no, they would not be granted citizenship. Do we want to find ways that will force people who should be deported to be deported? Yes. If the appeal process is so long, ungainly and unruly that people can abuse it, we need to fix the appeal process, shorten the time limits and find a solution to the root of the problem. As one of my colleagues said, we do not need a sledgehammer to swat a fly. If a less restrictive measure can be used, in other words, one that does not affect so many other cases that it should not affect, then that is what should be used.

We are talking about the unfortunate arbitrariness that applies when we use these broad categories. When we take away the requirement of the minister to take into account humanitarian considerations and international rights violations, that removes the possibility of allowing someone to enter this country. It takes away the requirement of the minister to at least take that into consideration and say that we do not have to worry about that. This is a significant problem.

The risk that we run here is that we may be deporting offenders who may have been sentenced to six months or a year in jail, who arrived in Canada with their parents at a very young age and who may know nothing of the country to which they will be deported. By doing that, we would be leaving at risk people whose only country to which they have an attachment is Canada and they may have been in Canada for many years.

I will quote some of the comments that were made by a group of lawyers in Toronto last week who are active in immigration law. They are very familiar with the broad range of cases. They say that we are talking about many people in the African, Caribbean, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, English, Irish and Scottish communities who have not acquired Canadian citizenship despite the fact that they have been here for a long time. They say that the removal of the appeal process for those who have been sentenced to more than six months would be a terrible burden when their cases ought to be considered.

First offenders who have been here for 15 or 20 years and are incarcerated learn things. They improve their lives. People can go to jail for six months for shoplifting if they do it often enough. Perhaps they are drug addicts and need rehabilitation. Those people would be treated as the dross of society and sent to some potential far corner of the world where God knows what will happen to them. This is the kind of thing we are opposed to. We support the bill in principle in terms of doing what it should do but want to see it substantially improved in committee.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position on this is not surprising as it has always been soft on crime and criminals and has ignored victims. However, I find it astounding that its members are now soft on foreign criminals also.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence are all in support of the bill. Does the member not support these organizations? Do the NDP not support organizations such as these?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the government and the members opposite are selective when it comes to organizations such as the ones the member mentioned because sometimes they support their legislation and sometimes they do not. When they do not support their legislation, such as the chiefs of police who did not support the Conservatives' destruction of the gun registry, the Conservatives' ignored them and treated them like dirt. They did not want them to come forward. They did not want to hear from them. They say that they did not know what they were talking about.

Let us leave those associations out of this and talk about the principles here. For the most part, this is not about foreign criminals who come to Canada to further their criminal activity. If that is what we are talking about, then the law should be able to deal with them. What the government has done here is that it has painted such broad categories that it is refusing to allow the rule of law, as we understand it, to apply to the people who have been in the country since they were two or three years old and whose lives and families are here. They may have made a mistake by committing a crime, for which they were sentenced to six months in jail, but they deserve the opportunity to be rehabilitated and not subjected to deportation to a country that is foreign to them and one that they have no knowledge of without having the opportunity to appeal. That is wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to average out the number of immigrants who have come to Canada over the last 10 to 15 years, we would find that there would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over 200,000 people who have come to Canada and who want to call Canada their home. I would suggest that we have in excess of 1.5 million people who are permanent residents in Canada and who want to make Canada their home.

Is it not fair to believe that a certain percentage will fall on the other side of the law? There is very strong argument that in extreme cases we want to expedite and get rid of individuals who commit violent crimes. I do not hear anyone necessarily defending that.

Acknowledging that with a population base of 1.5 million people there will be some who fall on the other side of the law, if we look at what the legislation would do in respect of those sentenced to six months or more, they would not be able to access the appeal mechanisms. I would like the member to provide specific comment in terms of justice being denied to those individuals. Again, that is with respect to minor types of crimes. He made reference to shoplifting but it could be other types of crimes that he might want to make reference to.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if the language in the bill were clear, the principle would be that we want to ensure that criminals who should be deported get deported. On that I think we can all agree.

However, I am not sure that everyone in the House would agree that people who have spent 20 or 22 years of their 25 years in Canada and who, for mental health issues, have run afoul of addictions or may have been caught two, three or four times shoplifting and ended up with a sentence of six or nine months, should be sent back to Somalia or a country where they have never been to since they were two years old and with their family here. I do not think we would find a lot of agreement on the other side of the House for that. I think we would find some human compassion to say that it is a special case that deserves some consideration.

The problem is that the bill does not give that person any consideration, does not give the judge any discretion and there is no right of appeal. What is wrong with the bill is that it makes one category with respect to dangerous criminals too broad. If it is for dangerous criminals, then it should be made for dangerous criminals.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for his eloquent speech and say that I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

This bill, if passed as is, will lead to numerous legislative changes with the purpose of accelerating the deportation, to their country of origin, of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have committed a serious crime in Canada or abroad. The Conservatives say that the faster removal of foreign criminals would prevent some of them from abusing the Canadian legal system to try to delay their deportation and extend their stay in the country.

One of the main provisions of Bill C-43 would amend the legal definition of "serious criminality" in order to restrict access to the appeal process should an individual be found inadmissible by a judge. Currently, a permanent or temporary resident of Canada can appeal such a decision to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, unless the individual is sentenced to two years or longer.

Such a sentence generally leads to the automatic revocation of the permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal a determination of inadmissibility. If Bill C-43 is passed, this right would be revoked as soon as a sentence of imprisonment of six months or longer is imposed. Such a sentence will not necessarily be imposed in cases of excessively violent crimes, as some of my colleagues mentioned a little earlier. Such sentences will be given to people who repeatedly commit crimes that might be considered less serious. At that point, they receive a sentence that is more severe than the original one. These people are not necessarily violent criminals. They are people who could still be rehabilitated.

Bill C-43 also puts more powers in the hands of the minister by allowing him to render a decision on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. The minister is given very broad discretionary power in that case. He could now declare that a foreign national is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. There is no clear definition of "public policy considerations" here. The minister will define it, without further justification.

Furthermore, although Bill C-43 specifies that entering Canada through criminal activity does not automatically make a person inadmissible—which can be important for people who were victims of human trafficking networks—it will take away the minister's responsibility to consider the humanitarian circumstances related to the individual's case. As a result, the minister will no longer be required to consider particular circumstances, such as security considerations, human rights and international rights violations, or organized criminality, in order to determine whether or not a humanitarian exemption has to be granted to a claimant.

Bill C-43 has to do with an issue that is a central concern for Canadians: their safety.

Keeping the people of Canada safe is also a priority for the NDP. We recognize the need to have an efficient justice system in order to deport real criminals who are not Canadian citizens to their country of origin. We do not support allowing these dangerous criminals, who put the safety of Canadians at risk, to stay in the country. If circumstances require it, we want to make sure that those people can be quickly deported to their country of origin in order to protect Canadians' safety.

We in the NDP also believe that we can work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. That is why I will support this bill at second reading. We also believe that it is possible to protect our people and to avoid those abuses without trampling on the rights of individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

The NDP is opposed to the idea of refusing anyone access to a just and fair appeal process. We are also opposed to the idea of giving the minister the power to unilaterally prevent a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if justified by public policy considerations, without our being able to identify clearly what exactly those public policy considerations are.

At the moment, as they often do, the Conservatives are trying hard to focus the debate on the issue of criminality in order to try to hide from Canadians the fact that Bill C-43 would henceforth grant wide discretionary powers to the minister and could violate the rights of a large number of foreign nationals and permanent residents. It is much easier to accuse everyone who objects to this bill of being soft on crime, as we often hear, or of not caring about the welfare of victims. That is completely false, and we must be able to keep things in perspective if we are to do our work properly here in this House.

So, because of the precise problems I have listed, it seems to me essential that, in committee, we study each of the provisions of Bill C-43 in depth and consider the potential negative consequences of enforcing it in its present unamended form.

In committee, it will be possible to focus on the provisions of this bill that present the greatest problems and make the changes necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike are respected and protected.

Another problem with Bill C-43 that deserves to be studied in depth is the fact that the bill restricts judicial independence by preventing judges from considering both the nature of a crime committed by a resident, whether temporary or permanent, and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. So, with Bill C-43, judges would no longer be allowed to consider the fact that some refugees from war-ravaged countries may be suffering from a mental illness. As we know, unfortunately, people fleeing from countries in the grips of war all too often arrive in Canada bearing the severe physical and psychological consequences of the trauma they have gone through in their country of origin. Unfortunately, when those people do not receive treatment, they often end up committing crimes. Whether they are citizens or not, they need help and treatment. Given the resources they need, they can frequently be rehabilitated. That will not be true of all foreign criminals who are going to be caught, but it will be true of a number of them, especially if they are suffering from a mental illness as the result of the trauma they have gone through at home.

Furthermore, Michael Bossin, an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, has said that young offenders commit a crime that gets them into a system that gets them treatment, medication and a rehabilitation program. They have family support, they have community support, and they are in no way a threat to anyone anymore.

Unfortunately, the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may well affect a large number of permanent and temporary residents with mental health disorders, who could be helped with treatment.

As we can see, Bill C-43 eliminates a number of control mechanisms that currently exist in the legal system and that provide a certain amount of flexibility. However, the flexibility being discussed here is absolutely necessary when somebody is confronted with extraordinary circumstances, such as the right to appeal in the case of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of appeal on humanitarian grounds for those who are deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or of violating human or international rights. It is obvious that much remains to be done to ensure that Bill C-43 fully respects the fundamental rights of individuals who want to become citizens, whether they are admissible or not.

Rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a handful of foreign criminals, as the Conservatives have done many times over the last few weeks, they should make a greater effort to reunite families and recognize the skills held by new immigrants so that they can find a job that uses their experience and their talent. We all want to be more strict with non-citizens who commit serious crimes against Canadian citizens, but we must never forget the fundamental values on which our legal system is based, even when dealing with people who have broken the law.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of speeches today by members of that party criticizing the government for this piece of legislation. They repeatedly say that they support getting tough on crime, “but....” They say they support cracking down on foreign criminals, “but....” There is always a but. There is always a reason. They always have an excuse for not supporting legislation. At some point it becomes clear that their protestations actually show that they do not support cracking down on criminals, including foreign criminals and having them removed from the country more quickly.

Would the member and her party finally admit that they do not support cracking down on crime and do not support faster removal of foreign criminals?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have the impression we are speaking to an empty room here in the House.

I think my speech was very clear, and I said clearly that I was going to support this bill at second reading, because the NDP considers it very important to protect Canadians from criminals, whether they are foreign criminals or not, who endanger their safety.

However, being tough on criminals does not mean you have to be callous and cold-blooded. We have social values here in Canada that demand that we show compassion for others and that we give consideration to the extraordinary circumstances that may well affect the actions and choices that some people make, no matter how ill-advised they may be.

The NDP is going to try to amend this bill so that it includes all of the necessary nuances for a legal system that is effective, fair and prompt in deporting criminals who must leave Canada quickly. However, we must not start stigmatizing and criminalizing all newcomers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is very much an anti-immigrant bill.

We need to start using the term “anti-immigrant”, because we have seen other pieces of legislation brought forward by the government that do target the immigrant community in a negative way. Even in the verbiage the government uses, it is anti-immigrant.

The bottom line is that the 1.5 million permanent residents the bill targets are outstanding participants in Canadian society. We need to acknowledge that fact about the vast majority of them.

Statistically speaking, immigrants commit far fewer crimes on a percentage basis than Canadians on average. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that fact.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As has already been mentioned, it is very clear that this bill is totally anti-immigration. This government has brought forward a number of bills that, with no valid reason, attempt to stigmatize immigrants, unless the immigrants have enough money to keep our economy going, of course.

However, everyone else, including refugees and people who need help and who come here to try to build a new life for themselves and their children, will be directly affected by the bill the government has introduced.

The Conservative government pretty much tries to set up immigrants to fail, and this is what we need to change in the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her interest in this issue. I am in favour of referring this bill to committee so that we can review it.

This bill gives rise to a lot of discussion and questions. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced a tough-on-crime bill. They are saying that there is a crime problem in this country and that it has to be solved. Statistically, it is quite the opposite; there is less and less crime in this country.

What is the purpose of this bill? Instead of addressing the challenges facing immigrants in this country, this bill comes down hard on crime committed by immigrants. As an hon. member said earlier, the crime rate among immigrants is statistically lower than that among Canadian citizens. In addition, the crime rate is going down.

I will ask this question again: what public policy considerations justify this bill? We have to ask ourselves that question, because this is a very important aspect of the bill. Ministerial discretion has been created for the definition of public policy considerations. Under the bill, the minister can now declare, for a maximum period of 36 months, that a foreign national is inadmissible based on public policy considerations. But the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. The minister has total discretion. We do not understand why the minister should have more power, when a number of immigration tribunals are already hearing immigrants' cases and the reasons why they came to Canada. There are currently enough tribunals to allow immigrants to present their evidence and to justify their place in Canada. There is no need to create another bill that will make the burden of proof heavier on immigrants, when that is not the case for ordinary citizens. Once again, this bill does a poor job of defining the concept of public policy considerations.

Why give the minister so much discretionary power in so many bills? This does not concern just this bill on criminalization in immigration. Almost all the bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the past year broaden ministerial discretion, which decreases the possibility for people to be heard by the tribunals.

Historically, the purpose of democracy was to take discretionary powers away from kings and ministers and to define the powers they have. For the past year in the House, the exact opposite has been happening. This is not normal. A living, breathing democracy should clearly define the government's power. But here, the government is in the process of broadening it.

Bill C-38 creates ministerial discretion with respect to the assessment of environmental projects. From now on, the minister has the right to decide whether or not a project will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Previously, certain factors would be used to determine whether or not an assessment would be done, but now it is left up to the minister. With this bill, ministerial discretion is once again being broadened, which I think is unacceptable.

A debate in committee could be useful. That is why, even with the huge reservations I have about ministerial discretion, I will continue to support the bill at second reading.

I also want to point out some inherent problems with the bill, problems that I find really very serious. In the past, in accordance with the act, an immigrant who had been sentenced to two years or more would have his permanent resident status revoked immediately. That is how it still is today. The bill we are looking at proposes reducing that sentence to six months or more. Any permanent resident who is convicted and sentenced to six months or more would lose his or her permanent resident status.

My Conservative colleague pointed out a few minutes ago that we are talking about foreigners and asked why the opposition did not support cracking down on foreign criminals in this country. Right now we are talking about permanent residents; they are not foreign. They have been allowed to enter Canada. We know them. They work here and, for the most part, they are contributing members of society and yet the Conservatives are saying that if they make a mistake, no matter what it is, a six-month prison term will strip them of their citizenship and their permanent resident status. That is it; they will be deported. That is very harsh, extremely harsh. I would like to expand on this in committee. A debate on this would be worthwhile.

Several laws in Canada impose a jail term of six months or more. I can give examples of people I know who have not paid their parking tickets. If too many parking tickets accumulate, a person can be sentenced to six months or more. If someone fails to pay their parking tickets, does that really justify deporting them out of the country? I find that a little much, to be honest.

It is extremely important that this bill be the subject of testimony by expert witnesses. Unfortunately, the people who draft the Conservatives' bill tend to go too far, perhaps because this government has a majority. Sometimes they cannot help themselves. That tends to be the Conservative way. They often appear incapable of seeing the fact that their bills benefit only a very small percentage of Canadians—perhaps those who give more money to the Conservative Party. I do not know, but maybe that it is.

It is very important for these bills to reflect the Canadian reality. I want to point out once again that crime rates are going down in Canada. I know that a few years ago the Conservatives were saying that they wanted to crack down on crime because a lot of crimes are not reported to the police. I am not going to chase shadows here; I am going after real criminals. I want to find a happy medium between protecting Canadian citizenship and an immigrant's right to a fair and equitable process. There is a fundamental right in Canadian law: everyone has the right to be heard. The minister's authority continues to grow. His discretionary powers are looking more and more like the powers of a king. That runs counter to legal tradition in Canada and all Commonwealth countries. The right to be heard is a fundamental right that the government would violate with this bill. This bill must absolutely be sent to committee to be examined carefully.

I hope that all members of the House will be open enough to allow amendments to this bill. Expert testimony will help with this. Many parts of this bill must be broken down, clarified, and debated so that the bill can truly benefit the Canadian public. Ultimately, immigrants must feel that Canada is a welcoming country. Historically, we have always been very open to immigrants, and I hope that we will continue to be.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member's speech. I guess I am disappointed by much of what I hear. I hear the NDP members say that they will vote for the bill to move it to committee, but everything about it is disliked.

Another thing that bothers and troubles me are some of the questions coming from the Liberals. The member Winnipeg North says that this is an anti-immigrant bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill deals with the criminal element. An example is Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam from Sri Lanka who was sentenced to 18 months in jail. His crimes included assault with a weapon, drug possession and drug trafficking. The removal order was in 2001, he went into an appeal process and seven years later he was finally removed.

We understand the importance of immigrants. We understand the great contribution to Canada. However, a very small percentage of individuals come here and commit fraud, such as an individual from Romania, or sexual assaults. They are in Canada and they should be on their best behaviour.

This bill gives us the opportunity to send those people back to their place of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the member's interest in criminal matters. I hope he will present a lot of amendments to this bill, as well as all other crime bills the government brings forward. They can all benefit from more debate at second reading.

When bills go too far, we are here to ensure that bills address the real problems of our country, not the fabricated ones the Conservatives keep throwing at us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an anti-immigrant bill, and the government needs to wake up and recognize that fact.

The 1.5 million-plus permanent residents in Canada today deserve better. Quite frankly, if we take a look at the amount of crime that is committed in Canada, the average immigrant is far less likely to commit that crime than the average citizen of Canada, yet the government has prioritized labelling them, calling them “foreigners”.

We do not hear the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism going out and calling permanent residents “a bunch of foreigners”. However, he is prepared to label them in legislation, highlighting what is very much an anti-immigrant bill.

Would the member not agree that, as worded, this is an anti-immigrant bill?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing that the Conservatives actually believe in welcoming all immigrants to our country. They seem to have a lot of reserve for an awful lot of them.

In some sense, I totally agree with the member. I hope the member from Winnipeg will be as full of vim and vigour through question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 should be a law that protects Canadians, a law that finally addresses past injustices. Unfortunately, the very opposite is true. This bill attacks the civil rights of Canadians. Never has a bill been such a huge disappointment.

For example, I shall quote Sir Winston Churchill who, during the Anzio Battle, said to an American general who had not been very active: “I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale.” The whale, in this case, is Bill C-43, a piece of legislation that in no way corresponds to what Canada needs. I will give three reasons for this.

Canada is a country in which the rule of law prevails. When someone does something wrong, he can expect to have justice meted out to him—this is true for everyone, not just those people that the Conservatives consider a little dangerous. It seems that the political powers that be are still intent on meddling in the management of immigration issues. People want the exact opposite of this bill. They do not want any more political interference in immigration matters. There has been far too much interference in the past, and as a result, what we need now is new legislation, and not simply a rehashing of old ideas from old governments.

We are seeing an increasingly arbitrary concentration of powers in the hands of the minister. The minister now not only wields political power, he also wants to wield legal power. As Machiavelli once said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What we are seeing in Canada is a government that interferes in immigration matters and merges electoral partisanship with legal duty. This problem should have been fixed; unfortunately, it is being perpetuated.

Bar associations and stakeholders in the legal community and the field of immigration rights have criticized the concentration of political power in the hands of the minister. They all agree that we should not do this, that we should do exactly the opposite. Some even say that the minister has discretionary power to determine the inadmissibility of a deportee’s family members. This is absolute discretionary power. If you are nice, if you look good for the media, and if you could be useful during a campaign, the minister will support you. And if not, it is a pity, but you will suffer the consequences.

As Montesquieu noted, there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. These basic democratic principles, these fundamental principles of our Constitution state that the legislative branch must be separate from the judiciary and from the executive branch. In this case, the government is trying to do exactly the opposite.

The government also wants to do away with the minister's responsibility to examine humanitarian considerations. Generally, in a judicial process, the whole file is considered so that a fair decision can be handed down. That is the normal judicial process. That is what we expected, but the government is doing the opposite. The most essential and most basic rights are being attacked, and this poorly conceived, poorly executed piece of legislation is going to be the subject of a court challenge. And once again, the government will lose, like it loses time and time again. It is a bad piece of legislation.

They were asked to stand up for Canada. What are they doing? The opposite: attacking Canadians. They are attacking their notion of the law.

They are attacking their right to a fair judgment.

Legal proceedings are an essential part of the legislation. However, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, commission members are appointed in haste, based on their ability to raise money for a political party, based on their personal friendships. This was already the case under the former government of a former political party.

The Conservatives are repeating the same mistakes, all the while saying that they will be tough on crime. No, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. We are asking for qualified individuals with solid legal training to make solid judgments. What are they doing? It is mediocrity at its finest: they are doing nothing. They are repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past. It is disastrous. We have never seen anything so pathetic.

It was proven that, upon reading the same legislation, some commission members accepted 98% of refugees, while a certain other commission member, in accordance with the same act, accepted only 2%. On the face of it, it is clear that this formula is not worth very much.

Cases of corruption have not just been pointed out, but they have been proven in court. These people have been convicted, found guilty of corruption beyond a shadow of a doubt. No corrections are made. We are asking for judges to be appointed, individuals who have judicial independence. Once again, they are appointing officials, friends, people who may not even be qualified. The government is not proving that they are qualified.

Once again, they are deciding to do the same things as in the past, with the same flaws, and they are going a step further by saying that they are going to fix the situation. Unfortunately, nothing at all is being fixed.

Now comes the third point, namely, whom they are targeting. All Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada may feel threatened. But that is where the major problem comes in. We are expecting a "Rizzuto" law. Mr. Rizzuto committed murders and is now in prison. He was not born in Canada, but he comes back here and everyone knows it. What is he going to do? He is going to commit murders. The police know it, all the criminal law experts know it. He comes to avenge his father and son, who were killed in a gang war.

We had hoped that this government, which claims to be tough on crime, would prevent individuals like that from coming to spread poison into our lives. But no, it seems to be clear that they are going after the little fish, the petty crooks, the small-time drug dealers, the people who get six months in jail. Yes, they have to be deported, but let us not forget the big fish, the people who bring in cocaine by the container-load. We are forgetting them, we are ignoring them.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So my words are shocking, are they? Well, good, because Canadians too are shocked to see that people like that are coming into Canada with a form of immunity. How many big Mafia bosses that are known to us in Canada have been deported? Zero.

Judge Falcone, an Italian anti-Mafia judge, used to say that organized crime could not grow if it did not have political protection. Has the government agreed to become that political protection? We know that political protection existed in the past. We know that the RCMP even said not to accept a certain individual as a minister. He became a minister in a previous government.

So we are asking the Conservatives to make an effort in that area, to allow no more Conrad Blacks, no more people who give up their Canadian citizenship in order to get a British title, but who come back to Canada once they are sentenced to jail. Let us be tough on crime once more.

This government and some of its elected members are clearly fleeing their posts in the face of the enemy. Our enemy is serious criminality. With this bill, they have surrendered.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech from my colleague, and I guess he does not really understand what Bill C-43 is, fast-tracking foreign criminals out of Canada.

He wants to talk about how he thinks Canadian citizens should not be allowed back into the country. If he has a way for those criminals who have committed the crimes he has suggested to not come back to the country, I would suggest he introduce a private member's bill. No Canadian citizen is allowed to be barred from Canada.

Let us get back to the bill, because he did not speak very much about it, other than to ask why we are pursuing drug traffickers and why we are pursuing criminals who are not Canadian citizens and who have committed serious crimes in this country. If the member is saying it is okay for drug traffickers to stay here in Canada and we should not be pursuing them and we should be keeping Canadian citizens out of Canada, that is a backwards approach.

I am not sure if the member really understands the bill. Perhaps we should get the bill to committee, because it would actually give us an opportunity to educate this member and any of his other colleagues who do not understand Bill C-43. It is a perfect place for us to sit down, negotiate and obviously teach them what the bill is all about.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when you wash your hands of the matter when a person who has committed murder on behalf of the Mafia, who has lived his entire life in the Mafia, and who has spread poison into our lives comes back to Canada, Canadians know perfectly well that you are abandoning your posts in the face of the enemy. You are giving that enemy permission to keep attacking Canada.

Judge Toti has said that there are three kinds of politicians: those who fight the Mafia, those who work for the Mafia and, the most dangerous of all, those who leave the Mafia alone. We are going to study this bill in committee with a view to giving it the teeth that you have not given it, the teeth to go after the people who are really running organized crime, not just the small fry, the people who bother you, the people who are letting you put on this charade.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I would remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, this is indeed an anti-immigrant bill.

At the end of the day, if it was just about serious criminals and deporting serious criminals who are permanent residents, I suspect the government would have a lot more support.

It goes far beyond that. To illustrate that in the form of an example, if someone is part of a family in a country abroad and one of the children immigrates to Canada, and if that person wants to visit that child someday but has another dependent who is involved in some sort of gang activity, that parent will not be able to come to Canada to visit the child. That is this serious crime bill that the government is talking about.

I am wondering if the member might want to comment on the fact that this bill does a lot more than just deal with serious crime by permanent residents?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had high hopes for this bill. We were hoping that it would prevent abuses like the ones we have already seen and talked about. Unfortunately, this bill basically attacks only what makes headlines. It does not address the essential elements of discrimination that allow the minister to decide who is a good guy and who is a bad guy.

This is an anti-immigrant bill. It points fingers at immigrants and paints them all as criminals. It is dangerous to do that. Innocent people are having fingers pointed at them, but because they are immigrants, they might even be accused of being criminals. This puts everyone in the same category: they all come to Canada to commit crimes. But that is not the case. That is the problem. Fingers are being pointed at people who do not deserve it. And for those who should be punished, I was expecting a “Rizzuto” law, a solid bill, but that is not what was introduced.

[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.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, in the last while I have heard a lot of comments about this particular bill, but I think there is an attempt by the opposition members to confuse some of the issues. They talk about immigration, refugees and multiculturalism.

What the bill specifically talks about are those people who are in Canada who have chosen not to become Canadians. They are just permanent residents who have broken our laws.

When we asked people to come and build this country, we asked them to come and join in our shared values, the same shared values that all Canadians enjoy, appreciate and abide by. If they choose to go against that and break our laws, that is the undesirable element.

I came here and transitioned from an international student to a landed immigrant, to a permanent resident, to a citizen and eventually to representing my constituents. That is what we are asking for, that people come here and share and abide by our shared values.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that not everybody is perfect and sometimes people do make mistakes but what do we do as a society about that? What do we do about the consequences on the other people who are affected?

I will read something from my staff, “One case that came in the office today is a twenty nine year old gentleman from Serbia that is being deported. All of his family live here in Canada now mother, sisters and brother. He has been here 6 years and works at two jobs a restaurant and as a home renovator for a local contractor. He has an H&C [a humanitarian and compassionate ground appeal case] in but again that will not be seen for at least another 3 years. He has no family in Serbia.

He is being deported. We have had more and more of these cases.

What possible benefit would that have? We should let the due process happen first before we send this man out of the country. He has family here and we know there have been problems in Serbia before. They are well documented in that region. What benefit will that be for our country to throw this young man out?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said and will continue to say, this is an anti-immigrant bill. This bill would have an impact in some fashion or another on 1.5 million permanent residents.

The bill itself is titled, “faster removal of foreign criminals act. The government chose to use the word “foreign” as opposed to the words “permanent resident”. What we are really talking about are permanent residents, those 1.5 million people.

As language is important, would the member explain why the government has chosen to use the words “foreign criminals” as opposed to “permanent residents”? We are really talking about permanent residents.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I mentioned some of the people who were refugees before. It is the tone that is being set and the concerns I have about concentration in the back halls and the dark doors of the minister, behind the scenes, and what could be said and done. We have already heard some of this come out in the past.

The fact is that other refugees around the world have played important roles. Bob Marley from Jamaica, for example, was a refugee. Olivia Newton John's grandfather was a refugee. Jackie Chan, Jerry Springer, Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Victor Hugo and Albert Einstein were all refugees. My concern is the degree to which we could go on this and having complete blind faith in the judicial system that could make a mistake with somebody.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Windsor West on his great speech. He reminded us of the human faces that are behind all of these bills. I wonder if he could expand a little more on the impact that this kind of language has on his constituency office and the cases he must often see in his office.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. We listen to the cases every day of people coming in. We are talking about families that are being broken apart. Sometimes there are children involved. If somebody has children in this country, they are Canadian citizens. It is not the children's fault that somebody else made decisions that have repercussions on them. Does that mean that we throw them out? The answer is, yes, we do because if they do not go with their parents they become wards of the state by themselves here. It is horrible to see these cases because often it is just processing time.

With this bill, we are focusing our time and the government is focusing its energy on the wrong types of things. We should get the processing times in place so we can make right and fair decisions for people.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-43, which proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As my colleagues before me indicated, we will support the bill at second reading, but this support is far from being a blank cheque. Bill C-43 has a number of significant shortcomings that will need to be addressed in committee. On this side of the House, we want to co-operate with the government to make Bill C-43 a fairer and more balanced bill.

Canadians expect us to be capable of reaching compromises. Compromises are at the core of a democratic system such as Canada's. Refusing to compromise is tantamount to failing to fulfill one's democratic obligations. Since the last election, our colleagues opposite have too often shown themselves to be closed off to dialogue and compromise. This is very regrettable. I sincerely hope that that will change.

Canadians want us to impose tough penalties on non-Canadians who commit serious crimes in Canada. I am certain that law-abiding newcomers to Canada—and it is important to say that they are almost all law-abiding—share our opinion.

What people in this country are asking for is a guarantee that our judicial system is efficient and sufficiently flexible when it comes time to return criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship to their countries of origin. Canadians especially want the government to invest more energy in ensuring that applications by newcomers are processed more quickly and more efficiently. The Conservatives should go to greater lengths to ensure, for example, that these people can be reunited with members of their family as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, I have several reservations concerning the content of this bill. For example, I have trouble understanding the reasons for the new discretionary powers being given to the minister. If Bill C-43 were to come into force tomorrow morning, the minister would have the power to declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident if he considers that it is justified by public policy considerations. However, one of the problems with this proposal is that the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. This opens the door to very different interpretations of what may constitute public policy considerations. This must be addressed.

I also have a lot of trouble understanding the presence of a clause that relieves the minister of his responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances associated with the application of a foreign national deemed inadmissible. I would like someone to explain the reason for this measure to me. I do not understand why humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not be taken to consideration in a review. Is that really the Canada that we want?

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that it severely limits access to the appeals process. We all agree that our appeal system must not be exploited in order to deliberately delay the removal of a non-resident to his country of origin, but the measures contained in Bill C-43 should not limit human rights.

The Conservatives have promoted their bill by speaking almost exclusively about the fact that it will speed up the deportation of dangerous offenders. However, Bill C-43 casts a far wider net than that. Among other things, it redefines serious crimes.

Under the present system, an individual who has committed a crime punishable by two years or more has no access to the appeal process. Bill C-43 wants to lower the bar to crimes punishable by six months or more. As a result, a lot more people will be denied the opportunity to appeal a decision made in their case.

Let us be clear. I am not fundamentally opposed to tightening the definition of “serious criminality”.

One benefit would be to take in crimes like sexual assault and robbery, which in itself is a good thing. However, I think we have to be vigilant and make sure the new definition does not lead to poorly thought out decisions.

One thing I am concerned about is what effects the new system of minimum sentences provided in Bill C-10 might have on decisions to be made in removal cases.

Some crimes covered by that new system are non-violent crimes. So we have to be careful when it comes to limiting access to the appeal process. The restriction in the legislation must not be extended too far by Bill C-43. Yes, we have to stop non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. But we also have to be sure that we take an intelligent approach to all of this. We really have to preserve a balance. Most importantly, we have to be able to guarantee that the right decision will be made in each removal case.

The appeal mechanism is a useful tool for that purpose. Why would we take it away? We will have to pay particular attention to this issue once it gets to committee.

So far, we have heard the Conservatives telling us over and over that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit serious crimes. I would hope so, but honestly, in real life, things are not necessarily black and white. We all know that reality is more complex than that. Bill C-43 should be constructed in a way that reflects that complexity.

For example, what do we do with offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who know nothing about the country they are to be deported to? Some organizations have raised concerns on this point, but that is not a factor to be considered under Bill C-43.

In the NDP, we want to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. However, we do not want the mechanisms that make it possible for our system to deal with extraordinary circumstances in a flexible manner to be eliminated.

Like the government, we want our judicial system to be effective and to make it possible for non-citizens who have committed serious crimes to be removed as soon as possible, but we do not want to have botched, unbalanced processes that do not take special situations into account. Wanting to expedite the removal of foreign criminals is a laudable objective in itself, but we have to make sure the process leading to removal does not violate the person’s rights. In our society, we have a duty to make decisions that are just and that recognize everyone’s rights.

Bill C-43 is a bill on which we can and must build. As I said earlier, we will support it at second reading, but we have to rework it. We will all benefit from being able to hear what the experts and representatives of organizations that specialize in these issues have to say.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is, how did we get to this point? I would like to raise three points with the hon. member.

First, let us talk about our involvement on the international stage. In the past, we engaged in cultural outreach with other countries. It was the first point of contact for people in other countries. We showed them our Canadian culture. That was taken away. Then all the resources for integration were taken away, especially the integration of professionals who come here to be part of our society, to work and to build a strong country. Basically, I see this bill as part of a step-by-step agenda that is unfortunately moving us towards an anti-immigration policy.

Can the hon. member give us more details about the New Democrats' vision of immigration issues?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The Conservatives' bill deals with a small minority. They have used a few highly publicized cases in order to introduce a bill that reflects their ideology. That is very unfortunate. As my colleague mentioned, New Democrats want Canada to be seen around the world as a law-abiding country that is open, just and fair. That means having a fair system of appeals for all Canadians, a system that can also accommodate newcomers with problems. That is the kind of Canada that New Democrats want.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my really big concerns about the bill is how it is going to affect youth as well as its consequences on other family members. What happens sometimes with refugees who come here is that if the youth are not busy and active they can often find themselves in cultural shock. Part of the program that I ran was to help mend the fences around the cultural shock.

Alternatively, these youth fall in with other groups and gang activity because they have nothing else. If they are not at school or if they are out of work, they are in a percentage that is highly vulnerable to being influenced by other people, especially when they do not know a new country.

I would like my colleague to examine the issues of vulnerability in the bill related to youth and families, especially when concentrating so much power in the minister's office.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a very important point: integrating new families. We have highly educated newcomers whose credentials are not recognized. I understand that this is a provincial matter, but the federal government could well play a major role.

This destabilizes families. When young children are involved, instability associated with employment and social integration can result in young people ending up in gangs and creating problems for themselves and those around them. That is what must be considered. We must make sure that we integrate newcomers so that they can feel secure in Canada. That is what we want for our Canada.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is more specifically about the consequences of this bill and, more importantly, the language used in it. I would like the hon. member to tell me about her experience in her constituency office and the very human stories she has been told.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Hull—Aylmer, I receive a lot of requests from newcomers.

What I find appalling about this bill is the responsibilities that the minister wants to take. We know very well that when immigration cases are referred to the minister's office, he categorically refuses to get involved. But now he wants to give himself a power without an appeal process, which may affect everyone. I have truly appalling cases in my riding of Hull—Aylmer, where newcomers might need training and integration support, but mainly they need help in the community. But the Conservative budget does not allow for that.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, which we are debating, is a bill amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

First, I would like to say that the New Democrats acknowledge that the judicial process must be effective and flexible when it comes to removing dangerous criminals who are not Canadian citizens.

Canadians want strict measures to be taken against non-citizens who commit serious and often violent offences in our communities. Newcomers, most of whom are law-abiding, would be the first to accept this approach.

What I really like about this bill is the clause that will ensure that entering Canada because of organized criminal activity is not in itself enough for a person to be deemed inadmissible for permanent residency and Canadian citizenship, which is great news for victims of trafficking rings who are anything but criminals.

On the other hand, I find some things in this bill quite disturbing. The first one is the minister’s discretionary power to decide whether or not some people represent a threat to national security and the national interest. In fact, this bill increases the arbitrary powers given to the minister. For example, Bill C-43 gives the minister vast powers that enable him to prevent a foreign national from entering or leaving the country, or declare someone inadmissible based on public policy considerations we think are ambiguous.

We must strengthen the independence of the judicial system, not give the minister the ability to decide who enters and leaves Canada. The last thing our immigration system needs is to be even more politicized.

Canada has an efficient and independent system to determine the admissibility of people into the country. There is no point in replacing it with the whims of a minister. The minister must not be able to prevent people entering the country just because they disagree with the government. It is ridiculous to think that giving the minister more power will solve anything.

Another problem comes from the fact that the provisions of Bill C-43 will apply to people who have been found guilty of serious crimes abroad, as well as in Canada. Canada has one of the world’s best justice systems. Other countries are not so lucky. In many countries, merely belonging to an opposition party may lead to a conviction on serious criminal charges. There is no better illustration of the importance of the rule of law.

We must ensure that Canada remains a country that welcomes and offers hope to people who are fleeing persecution in other lands.

That said, I do think it reasonable to ensure that people guilty of sexual assault or robbery with violence are not running loose on our streets.

In view of the change in the definition of “serious criminality”, the change from the criterion of a two-year sentence to a six-month sentence, and since crimes committed abroad would be considered, the professionals who work with immigrants, refugees and the diasporas have also expressed their concerns that this legislation may unjustly punish young people and the mentally ill.

Therefore, the impact of this provision must be carefully studied to ensure that the measures truly achieve their goal, to prevent dangerous people from entering Canada.

Another thing that disturbs me in this bill—and in the government’s policy in general—is the image of immigrants they have created. The bills are trumpeted as if immigrants were a great threat to the country or as if all immigrants were potential criminals, when almost all immigrants to Canada are people who are seeking a better life and a better future and who, like all other Canadians, want to live in a safe environment.

I am an immigrant. I chose Quebec and Canada to live and raise my family, and I am very happy to be involved in my community in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I made this particular choice because I wanted a safe environment for my family, and I have found it here.

Immigrating is not easy, particularly if you are not coming to join family members who are already here. You have to start from zero. You have to find a place to live, and furnish it. You have to find a school for your children. You have to get your diplomas recognized, and in my case that was a nightmare. Finding a job is also a major challenge. A 2010 study shows that the unemployment rate is four times higher among immigrants with a university diploma than among university graduates born in Canada.

The last thing immigrants need is to be stigmatized and have a “potential criminal” aura, which would make it even more difficult for them to integrate and contribute to society in Quebec and Canada. The government has got to abandon the rhetoric that puts all immigrants in the same basket. People in my riding are already telling me disturbing stories about how they are treated and the perception others may have of them, simply because they have come from somewhere else.

That said, we must not ignore the problems that exist. We simply have to be sure our response is measured. As they say where I come from, you do not use a hammer, or a cannon, to kill a mosquito.

I know we can stop non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal process without denying their rights. We, and the government, have to focus on improving the immigration system so it is faster and fairer for the large majority of people who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.

I would point out again that the very large majority of people who come to Canada are not criminals. They are people who hope to contribute to society and build a better world. More often than not, they are even professionals and highly educated people.

In closing, I want to say that the question of health care for refugees is still an issue and is still important. The government probably wants us to forget the cuts it has made to that program. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with the College of Family Physicians of Canada, who asked me to keep up the fight for health care for refugees. I want to remind the government that we in the NDP are not forgetting this.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several speeches. What I like is that every NDP member who has spoken has contributed something different to the debate. I thank my colleague for her speech. I especially enjoyed hearing about her experience as an immigrant. She gave us a different perspective on the debate. We look at it from the viewpoint of those who welcome immigrants, but it is also important to hear about the perspective of the people who immigrate to Canada.

I was struck by one aspect of her speech. She talked about the definition of serious criminality and how it is perceived elsewhere. How can we improve this bill for people who are not really criminals? There are also political considerations. How can we improve the definition in order to be fair to people who apply to Canada?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question. He is very familiar with my experience as an immigrant. He knows that after arriving in Canada, I had to fight various battles to get to where I am today.

Unfortunately, this bill would send criminals back to their country of origin. Immigrants have the perception that they are stigmatized, and they believe that other people view them as potential criminals. I would like to clarify that for everyone. As I said, when one immigrates, there is work to be done on both sides: 50% by the host country and 50% by the immigrant. Unfortunately, with certain policies, there is no will to integrate these people, only to stigmatize them.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I cannot begin to count the number of characterizations she has used to talk about how we on this side feel about immigrants. We are not talking about stigmatizing immigrants as criminals. That is complete hogwash.

She talked about not politicizing the process. I will ask her a question about people who are non-political but have an opinion on the process, and they are professional opinions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence are among the many organizations that support Bill C-43.

Does the member and her party support the views of these organizations on this legislation, or would they rather politicize the process and not listen to professionals?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite did not listen to the beginning of my speech. I said that the NDP is in favour of a strict and flexible judicial system.

It makes sense. What is written there and what we are talking about are amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. So if we are not talking about immigrants, who are we talking about?

As an immigrant, I am not defending serious criminals. I am defending immigrants. Even if young people commit minor thefts or other similar crimes, we must not give the minister the discretionary power to decide who is a serious or petty criminal, who is a danger to the country, who must not enter or who must leave.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my comments to the debate.

We have said that we will support sending the bill to committee. Obviously a lot more information is needed. That has come out in the comments already, and I expect will continue for the balance of the afternoon.

As the government has heard, we have some strong feelings about this issue. We have further strong feels and concerns about why the Conservatives do this, the way they do it, the language they use and what their real intentions are. That comes from experience, watching the government in action.

However, we will be fair-minded and even-handed, but we will stand by the principles we believe in on the issue of new Canadians and those who are on the path to become new Canadians.

Let me say parenthetically before I get into the substantive part of my comments, let us recognize again that every jurisdiction in the country, whether it is federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, townships or counties, recognizes that attracting new Canadians to our country is not just a Canadian value, which would be enough for most of us on this side of the House, but it is a necessary component of our ability to move forward and have the kind of economy that will provide the jobs and quality of life that we have come to enjoy, that we want to continue and that we want to make better for our children and our grandchildren.

We need to be the country in the world that everybody else looks to and says, “There is where I want to go. That is the country I want to go to because of the values of the country, the opportunities it would give me”. More than anything, I think it is fair to say most of those people would be thinking that this is where they want their children and grandchildren to be raised, to give them the maximum opportunity. It matters when we have these debates. It matters what language we use, because we send messages when we do that.

For the longest time, for the whole time I have been at the federal order of government, there has been a growing recognition that more and more new Canadians who come here find that the jobs they were told would be here are not, that the profession they were told they could continue in is no longer possible. When they see all the promises that have been made are not real, many of them do not stay.

Far too many are making the decision down the road, after six, 12, 18, 24, 36 months, that Canada is not what they thought it would be, that it is not the dream they thought they would live and they are sending that message back to their home country, to their family members and their friends and their colleagues, those who want to come to Canada because it is the place to be. They are being told that they might just want to slow down a bit because it is not always that way.

That kind of messaging is antithesis of what we need to send out if we are to attract the kind of new Canadians we want to come in here to be a part of our great nation and to help us fulfill and finish the job of building the kind of Canada that we want for our children and our grandchildren. This is the wrong message when we use language like this. The Conservatives love to say, “foreigners, criminals, crack down”.

I lived through eight years of that under Premier Mike Harris. It was the same language, the same hot button politics. It is not a coincidence that up until recently the chief of staff to the Prime Minister was the chief of staff to Mike Harris, or that three of the senior members of this current government were senior members of the Mike Harris government. Therefore, I have seen and heard a lot of this before.

It took a while, but eventually Ontarians got the message and understood what was really going on behind the names of bills that were the opposite of what they really would do, throwing out hot button words, trying to create emotions, moving people by emotion rather than reason. These were all good political ploys, but at the end of the day, Canadians figured it out and when they did, that premier could not face the electorate in the next election. In my opinion he was so unpopular that he had to step down and another fellow stepped in, but people knew by then it was not really just the leader, it was the whole government and the whole approach. Ontarians threw them out, and according to recent polls, they are not looking to bring them back any time soon.

A lot of my concern is about that kind of thing. We will have a lot more time at committee to look into these issues, that is why we sent things to committee. Hopefully we have an intelligent review, bring in experts, let the public hear and read what we read and then make our deliberations and decisions. Canadians can draw their conclusions and decide whether they want to send each of us back here or not.

It will not come as a big shock that my first concern is loading up another minister with even more power. I realize that the concept of benevolent dictator exists and one can only hope, but that is all we are left with is hope. That is not really the way we do things in Canada. Removing checks and balances, making decisions unilaterally, pushing more into the political arena, sometimes these are the right things to do, but we have real concerns about it in this application. Again, that is why we want to send it to committee so we can look at these issues.

Make no mistake, there are many Canadians right now if asked point-blank would they be in favour of giving the Prime Minister's ministers more power, yes or no, some would say yes, but I think the vast majority would, if not say no, would ask why. That is where we are. We are at the why.

I am getting comments and I have some concerns about going down that road overall. However, at committee we will have an opportunity to answer the question of why. What are the reasons the government is giving for wanting increased unilateral powers for the minister to have and do and do they hold up against an examination of the problem they are trying to solve? There are problems everywhere. The solutions, however, can either be appropriate to the problem, or they can be overwhelmingly way over the top, or it can be a nice little fig leaf to put out in front because behind there are other reasons why they want these powers.

All these things are unknown at this point. We are highly suspicious and not just because we are the official opposition, but because we know the Conservatives. However, again, we will send it to committee and have a look at it.

Finally, I would point out it was the whole idea that suddenly someone could be removed without an appeal when they went to a federal prison, but now we will move it down to six months. There is a reason deuce less a day exists. There is a reason some people go to provincial institutions on a sentence of two years less a day and other people are sent to the penitentiary where they will be for many years, possibly decades, possibly the rest of their life. These are two completely different worlds of criminal behaviour. We need to ask the questions and we will. Why is it necessary to make such a dramatic change that results in unilateral action taken against people by removing their right to appeal? Part of the Canadian way is to give people their say, let them have their day in court.

I do not have to time to get into what the Conservatives attempted to do in terms of health care for refugees or the fact that they can bring in foreign workers and pay them 15% less. There are a whole lot of reasons why we have some serious concerns with what has been proposed, but we will support it going to committee. We will roll up our sleeves and do the work. If it is a good idea, we will support it and if it is not, we will take it on with every breath that we have.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by the member for conspiracy theory over there. I know he has strong feelings, and that is great. That is what we need in this place. We have strong feelings, too.

He talked about the hidden real intention of our government. I can say what our real intention is and that is to protect Canadians, Canadians who are born here and Canadians who come here. My friend also talked about taking away appeals. That is not the case at all and he knows that. What we are talking about is limiting the appeals to something less than endless numbers over seven to 10 years.

I will ask my colleague a question. He talked about minor crimes. Nobody is going to be thrown out of Canada or deported for minor crimes. Does he think crimes punishable by at least six months are minor? They consist of assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, break and enter. Does the member think that those kinds of crimes or the people who commit those crimes over and over are minor?

It is not the fact that they are immigrants. It is the fact that they are criminals. Saying that we are stigmatizing immigrants is simply nonsense. It is rhetoric and it is out of place. Does he think those kinds of crimes are minor?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to think the member believes they are minor. Otherwise, he would have a private member's bill in the House that would turn everything into a penitentiary penalty.

The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between speeding and a minor offence for which a person would receive a four to six-month sentence versus someone who has been sent off to a penitentiary for 20 years. There is a distinction there. Yes, we want to have a discussion about whether that should justify that kind of unilateral action. That is the whole point.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague to be a veteran in politics and I always appreciate his candour. I wish I could be as forthcoming in my opinions as he is, and in such an eloquent way.

With all due respect to my Conservative colleague on the other side, his main point was about the concentration of power. If we look at the pattern of the government over the years, it has been the concentration of power in the PMO's office or a minister's office. I would like my hon. colleague to perhaps expound on why that is a problem.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend can play games about me being a conspiracy theorist, which is fine, but I fully confess that after spending eight years in a Conservative House, one becomes very concerned about conspiracies. I have no problem with that. However, what I really want to focus on is whether the minister should get more power and whether it is reasonable that we would be so concerned about giving him that power.

We do not have enough time to talk about the litany of abuses of power by the government, starting with our very democracy. This is the government that passed the law, and it loves laws, that said there would be an election on a specific date. That was it and it was final. It was decided and there was the law. The first thing it did was ignore that law and set it aside because it did not suit its purposes. That is the kind of thing we are worried about.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question related to the one posed by my colleague previously. It has to do with the increasing movement by the government to give complete discretion, with no criteria, to ministers or some other authority to make decisions that impact the lives of people in Canada.

One thing concerned me about the comment that was made, which I know was meant in all good faith by my Conservative colleague across the way, and that was that it was not the government's intent. Could the member please elaborate for the House?

The very reason we pass laws is to provide legal certainty. That is why laws have to be very clear and provide clear criteria for how that discretion is to be exercised. That is the very idea behind why laws are made. Once that law is passed, there is no way the government can say that is not what it meant by that law. The law is clear on its face until it is tested in the courts.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the member has answered the question herself. The member is a lawyer, so she knows far more about this than I do.

As a layperson, I will just say this, when we pass a law it says to someone that they have been found wrong and that we are going to take action. There is going to be a penalty and it is going to hurt in some fashion in that person's life.

We are also big believers that the person should be given the opportunity to have an appeal, a second opportunity for justice if they believe it was not had in the first case.

When all that power is put in one human being, as flawed as we are, that is looking for trouble. It is looking for trouble if one goes at it with the right attitude, but we do not think the Conservatives even bring that to this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today at second reading to speak to Bill C-43.

It is described as an act for the faster removal of foreign criminals. If we were debating the title of the act, I really do not think there would be anything to debate. I cannot imagine any Canadian who does not think that a foreigner who is a dangerous criminal should be removed from Canada.

As has happened lately with a number of pieces of legislation brought before the House since I have been a member, I have been surprised how far the titles have morphed from the kinds of titles of legislation I once studied at law school. It used to be that we would open a statute and we found that, not only was the book dusty, the title of the legislation was just a blanket description of what was at stake: an immigration and refugee statute or a law to deal with the Fisheries Act.

Now we have titles that seem to, and probably do, come out of focus group testing for legislative titles that would be zingers in future election campaigns. As someone who studied statutes, I find this a dismaying trend. I realized the other day while watching a U.S. program on HBO called The Newsroom that this was invented by the Republicans south of the border. I do not watch enough U.S. TV to have known that if I had not been watching The Newsroom.

Back to the topic, this piece of legislation, which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, definitely has merit if what it is about is getting rid of dangerous foreign criminals who have no right to be in Canada.

I assert that what we have here is always going to be a question of balance. We do not want dangerous foreign criminals with no right to stay in Canada to be here, threatening Canadians who have every right to be here. However, we also recognize that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, permanent residents and citizens of Canada have charter rights. The question then is whether we have the right balance. Are we protecting permanent residents who are not a threat to our society or are we sweeping them up in the vast and sweeping discretion of the minister?

This could do serious injustice to people who are important parts of Canadian society, who contribute in positive ways and who we would not want to be caught up in a sweep that did not take account of individual rights, individual situations, humanity, compassion, holding families together and other aspects that have always been part of the consideration before deportation takes place.

When we ask if the balance is right in the legislation, I turn to some of the recent comments by members of the Canadian bar. Toronto lawyer Mendel Green is quoted in this story from the Toronto Sun as saying:

I am concerned about the monumental affect this will have on the immigrant community if it becomes law.... This will be a life sentence for many people.

Lawyer Joel Sandaluk, at the same press conference, representing the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, said:

This will destroy families who've been here for a long time.... It will create more criminals if parents or other family members are removed from Canada.

I have further quotes from other lawyers. Lawyer Guidy Mamann also said this about the potential residents who could be swept up and deported with no chance of appeal and without any exercise of individual discretion. He said:

These are young children brought to Canada at a young age as permanent residents, raised and schooled in Canada...[but] never took out citizenship.... It is unconscionable that a country like Canada, which has always allowed for second chances, to now embark on a new ‘one strike you’re out’ approach.

Last, I will cite lawyer Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, who said that the bill is drafted in such a way that it could easily sweep up people guilty of minor offences and have them deported. He said:

We are not talking about serial killers, murderers or bank robbers.

Let us take a look at what kind of people could be swept up by the bill and what kinds of crimes people would have to commit for there to be no right of appeal and the person would just be sent out of the country. This can be described as crimes for which people are convicted for a sentence of six months or more.

The current law deals with crimes where sentences are two years or more. To bring it down to six months or more for a crime for which the ultimate sentence could be as much as ten years in jail would bring in a series of crimes that do not threaten the security or at least the safety of Canadians. In other words, it would take in a number of crimes that do not involve any threat of violence. If someone is found guilty of a crime and sent to jail for six months or more, nowhere does this new legislation require that the crime be a crime of violence or something that threatens the security of Canada.

The kinds of crimes listed that I found might fit this definition for which someone who is a permanent resident could get a six month sentence but a ten year maximum would include the deportation for possession of a stolen or forged credit card and the use of that credit card knowing it had been cancelled, the unauthorized use of a computer or forgery, and a host of other offences that carry ten year maximums. In that case, we are talking about no discretion, no appeal.

What could easily happen is that if any one member of a family, a parent or a younger member, children born in Canada, relatives participating in Canadian society or any one part of the fabric of a Canadian family, is found guilty of something that is not in any way a crime of violence but receives a sentence of up to six months with a maximum of ten years, that individual is gone. The individual would have no chance to plead his or her case.

I will quote one other lawyer on this matter who, I am proud to say, is the current nominated candidate for the Green Party in Victoria in a byelection. His name is Donald Galloway. He is a founder of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and is also a professor of refugee and immigration law at the University of Victoria. In looking at this, he suggested that there was an inherent legal balance built into section 34 of the current act so that the courts have accepted broadly defined prescribed grounds of inadmissibility that are found in section 34(1) based on the assumption that these same sweeping inadmissibilities are balanced by the provisions in section 34(2).

If Bill C-43 were enacted, it would fundamentally destabilize the legal balance by removing the layer of individualized, personalized, case-by-case review guided by, in some cases, humanitarian concerns and compassion that acted as a safeguard against the breadth of prescribed grounds for inadmissibility found in section 34(1). Beyond issues of compassion and fairness, this ill-conceived change would force the courts, as they have already indicated, into a position where they will need to intervene and fix the act to provide a reinterpretation to ensure that the act remains constitutional, otherwise it will violate the charter.

I will now turn my attention to another section of the act that I find particularly egregious and which does not deal with criminals and does not deal with people already in Canada.

If the minister, under the new clause 8, which would change section 22 of the current act, is dealing with a foreign national who has applied to become a temporary resident of Canada, the minister would have unfettered discretion to make a decision to refuse that person the right to be a permanent resident of Canada with no objective criteria that can be measured. This is very unusual. The clause states that section 22.1(1), which can be found under clause 8 in the proposed Bill C-43, allows the minister, “on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”. This banishment can last for up to three years.

Going back to my time in law school doing legal drafting and statute interpretation, we cannot find anything that gives us more freewheeling power to make up our mind which ever way we want than the language “Minister is of the opinion”. No court will be able to step in and say that it does not like the way the minister has exercised his or her discretion. I am using his or her as this will apply for all time. I am not just thinking of the minister at the moment. This would be a permanent change to our legislation and a dangerous one. The legislation says “the Minister is of the opinion”, and then what? What is the minister of the opinion of? The Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations. We could not come up with something that gives more freewheeling discretion, not bound by anything in particular. What kind of public policy considerations? Maybe the public policy considerations could be that we have too many of a certain kind of person in a town. Who knows? It is without objective criteria.

I hope that when this legislation goes to committee and is studied in committee we can rebalance the balance that must be there.

I stand here as leader of the Green Party not in favour of keeping dangerous foreign criminals in Canada but in keeping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I share many of the same concerns with the member from the Green Party, I am not clear whether she will support the bill going on to committee if, for instance, a convicted war criminal was found and there were questions like that.

Would she no agree with me that there is a question of priorities here? The government is presenting the bill before the House when there are so many other problems that exist. The underemployment of new Canadians costs us $5.9 billion a year in losses because of their underemployment. We have hollowed out our foreign engagement, eliminating culture as a pillar of foreign policy, and we do not meet them on their soil anymore. We have hollowed out the system to integrate professional new Canadians. Now, we have hollowed out Canadians' trust in new Canadians.

Would the member not agree that perhaps the government's priorities are misplaced? Even though we are supporting the bill at second reading, and we hope she will join us in order to improve the bill at committee, does she not see a question of priorities?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with not just some but a lot of concern and mixed feelings, I will support sending the bill to committee. However, as I am not a member of that committee, I reserve the right I have as the member representing the Green Party and Saanich—Gulf Islands to submit amendments at report stage if I am not satisfied that the bill has been re-balanced appropriately to reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and respect for it.

The member's question about war criminals is a good one. It sounds pretty much like a no-brainer. If someone is a war criminal, we do not want the person in Canada, nor do we want people who have defied their government, committed crimes and spent time in jail. However, every now and then a person like that gets honorary Canadian citizenship, like Nelson Mandela.

The move under this proposed legislation and other legislation, such as the mandatory minimums under Bill C-10, is toward an authoritarian automatic discipline, which is unforgiving forever and lacks any compassion, humanitarian or even a thought process. That I will always oppose.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member did not mean to refer to Nelson Mandela as a war criminal.

When I talk to immigrants in Edmonton or anywhere else, they are the ones who are most upset when people, who get away with serious crimes, come from abroad to be part of Canada as landed immigrants or permanent residents. The expression “get away with murder” is true in some cases but a little extreme in most. However, the immigrants I talk to are some of the most upset about others who do not play by the rules and take advantage of Canada's generosity or, as some would suggest, over-generosity.

No one is suggesting that we take away people's rights or ability to appeal, but they should not appeal endlessly for seven to ten years, time and time again, when the evidence is clear and it is simply the immigration industry prolonging the process.

The immigrants I talk to play by the rules and they expect everybody else to as well: existing Canadians, natural born Canadians and new Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for Edmonton Centre for catching me on that. I certainly did not want to refer to Nelson Mandela as a war criminal.

My point is that history is written by the victors and quite often someone who is accused in another country and called a convicted terrorist or something we would not want in Canada. However, if we lose our ability to examine particular circumstances, we lose our ability to think and to be truly Canadian.

I believe that what we want to do with this legislation is consider all the ways in which it could go awry, which, I am sure, is the minister's intention in bringing this forward. For example, if a member of a family that has been in Canada for a long time is convicted of the misuse of a credit card or of forgery, the bill says “no more chances, you are deported”. That cannot be the Canadian way.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, RCMP; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Malpeque, Ethics.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, also known as the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

Before I speak about this bill specifically, I would like to briefly tell you about my constituency, LaSalle—Émard. LaSalle actually is celebrating its centenary this year. It was founded by a nobleman, René-Robert Cavelier de La Salle, who settled there more than 100 years ago. The name LaSalle comes from the name of this Frenchman who arrived more than 300 years ago. The French settled there, then the English. In fact, my constituency has been shaped by those French and English settlers, who worked together to build the community.

For decades, LaSalle—Émard has welcomed large numbers of newcomers, new Canadians. We have an Italian community that is one of the largest on the island of Montreal. Immigrants have become well established. We also have a large Chinese community and a large southeast Asian community, people from India, Pakistan and other countries in the region. We also are fortunate to have welcomed many people from North Africa and even from other parts of Africa.

LaSalle—Émard really is very representative of a number of communities in Canada as a welcoming place, a place where communities share their daily lives. I must tell you that I am very proud to represent the constituency, because it gives me the opportunity to meet people from every background: Quebeckers, English-speakers, British people with Scottish and Anglo-Saxon roots, and also people from communities all around the world.

As the member of Parliament, I have also put together a team to welcome and provide services to Canadians. I have come to realize that those services involve immigration to a great extent. Our immigration system has been stretched to the limit for years by the lack of resources, the lack of funding, the closure of embassies and places where people can submit visa or citizenship applications, and so on.

And what is happening here too, right inside the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? Cuts once more. There is not enough staff and not enough funding to meet the demand. So what is happening? People are coming to their member of Parliament's office to get information and answers to their legitimate questions and requests.

Every week, we meet with people to talk about their situations. Sometimes it is something quite simple. There is a wedding in the family and the people want their relatives to attend the ceremony, but the visa is denied. All the information has been provided. All the documents have been sent, but for some reason or another—a totally legitimate reason—the visa is denied.

However, other people come to talk about situations that are more complicated. They are expecting a loved one to join them, or they are refugees who have been issued a deportation notice. That is what is happening at our riding offices. It is always an immensely human story that is told in our office. As Canadians, we cannot even begin to imagine the situations that some people are in. We live here, in Canada, freely and comfortably. We have all our papers. We can get a passport, our driver's licence, and our health card without too much difficulty. But there are people who leave behind unimaginable situations, such as famine. There are people who have lived in refugee camps, where it is hard to imagine how they would get their documents, a licence or anything. Those are the stories and events that sometimes—far too often lately—land in our offices.

What we have before the House is a bill that seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act whose short title is the “Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act”, because it is about foreigners.

I want to reiterate this: the NDP recognizes the need to have an efficient legal system in order to deport serious criminals who are not citizens. The NDP believes that it is possible to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system without violating people's rights. This is the first thing that I want to say about Bill C-43.

However, this is Parliament. There are laws. The questions that we should be asking when we are in government are as follows. On what basis is this bill being introduced? Is this bill necessary? Does the Criminal Code contain provisions to prevent this situation? These are the questions that I am asking myself and that a government should ask itself before introducing a bill. There are other questions. Does this bill meet an urgent, pressing need or respond to a disastrous situation that is currently affecting our system? That is a question that should be asked. Does this bill fill a gap? That is the question that I am asking because a bill should be justified and justifiable.

There is one other thing that I would like to point out. As my colleagues already noted, this government has a strong tendency to want to push the judiciary into the political arena. In other words, it will transfer powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I explained the situation in my riding office. At some point, will it not just slow down the system and, once again, get into subjective territory to transfer such power to a single person outside the judiciary? The power would be concentrated in the hands of one individual.

I raise all these questions about the bill.

I am happy to answer any questions.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at length about her riding and the wide range of groups of people she represents. I too, in Newmarket—Aurora, represent a community that has changed very quickly over the last 10 years. I have been pleased to welcome into Newmarket—Aurora people from every corner of the world. These are people who have come to Canada because in many cases they are looking to escape from places in the world that have been plagued with difficulty and corruption. They have come to Canada because they are looking to raise their families in safe communities.

My question to my colleague is: Why does she want to expose the constituents in her riding to people who have been deemed foreign criminals, dangerous to our society and our communities? These very people who have come here and played by the rules want to live in safe communities, which is what we are trying to establish. Why does she want it to be different?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I completely agree with her that we all want safe communities in which people can live in peace.

However, I wonder whether the bill addresses the flaws that appear to be in the Criminal Code or in our current immigration system, which is there to identify people who may be serious criminals.

Once again, it does not seem clear to me, and this could be clarified in committee, but what does “serious criminality” mean? I would like to know because I am being told that a prison sentence of six months or more is given in cases of “serious criminality”. One member mentioned violent crime.

Quite simply, things need to be clarified.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member in her question illustrates why it is that this is an anti-immigrant bill, at least in good part. She keeps wanting to use the terms “foreign criminal” and “dangerous people”.

What we are talking about are permanent residents. Most of the criminals she is referring to are not child molesters, murderers, drug addicts and so forth. With a six-month sentence, we could have 19-year-olds who have lived in Canada for 17 years but never got their citizenship, who got caught with six marijuana plants in their home. They are going to be deported. The rest of the family stays, but they are going to be deported to another country, even though they have been here for 15 of 17 years, because they did not get their citizenship.

All the Conservatives have to do is read their own legislation. My question is: Is the wording not important in terms of how the government is even labelling this issue, much as it used the term “bogus refugee”?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote an excerpt of an article I just read on this subject:

The federal government has always had the authority to strip landed immigrant status from a permanent resident convicted of a serious crime, but Bill C-43 would allow appeals only for those sentenced to less than six months in jail, down from the current threshold of two years.

This authority already exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. So is this bill necessary? That is what I was asking.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would observe that there are times when many members wish to pose questions. We only have five minutes for questions and comments, so I would ask hon. members who wish to pose questions to keep their questions and responses to no more than about a minute so that as many members as possible will have an opportunity to pose questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have referred to this bill as an anti-immigrant bill, even in its short title, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. Just because its name implies something does not necessarily make it a good bill. Many Canadians have concerns about serious crimes and want some sort of consequences for those. We recognize that.

Does the member have any difficulty with the government using words like “foreign criminals” as opposed to “permanent residents”, much like it used the term “bogus refugees” to try to send an indirect and very negative message toward immigrants?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.

I completely agree, and I even said so in my speech. When I hear government members using the word “foreigners” to describe people who live here as permanent residents, I am very unhappy, especially when it is the Minister of Immigration, who should be their champion, defending these people and supporting them. Moreover, the French word for foreigner, “étranger”, also means stranger--someone not like us. It is as if they did not want to associate with foreigners or strangers. It is very upsetting to hear them use such terms.

Serious crimes have been mentioned a number of times. Someone who has six marijuana plants in the house will now be considered a serious criminal, but is that really true? That is a question Parliament will have to answer one day.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for an incredible speech. She always grounds her speeches in personal experience, and if she were still an immigrant and I were the minister, I would be happy to make her a citizen immediately.

I have two issues. The first is that we have had a frustrating situation in Edmonton and all of northern Alberta, where the minister has delayed reappointing a citizenship judge for over a year. I am getting letters and calls from applicants who have been waiting more than 18 months simply to have their applications considered.

Does the member think the government is making things even more difficult for landed immigrants and that it could perhaps put more programs in place to provide employment and support for youth who might get in trouble, allowing them to avoid potential deportation and perhaps to become productive Canadian citizens?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strahcona.

Situations such as those my colleague has just described are very hard to understand for people like us who have grown up here and always lived here. When people arrive in a new country, they may not understand the language very well. They are completely disoriented. Instead of helping them make a contribution to our society, our beloved country, the government tells them the process may be long and it tries to discourage them by putting obstacles in their way. In short, the message it is trying to send is that we are not sure we really want them. It is not obvious to these young people and it may be that some of them will turn to crime. We must give them more help.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this new bill gives a great deal of discretionary power to the Minister of Justice. I wonder if my distinguished colleague could talk about the importance of separating judicial, administrative and political powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the main risk here is that there is no longer any judicial independence. These decisions will become completely arbitrary and, based on the criteria, they will be made on the minister's whim.

Instead, we need clear legislation with specific criteria. We want these decisions to be made by judges, not by the minister.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Speaker, in the brief time I have I cannot go over chapter and verse of the bill, but I want to focus on a couple of sections and aspects of the bill.

Bill C-43 concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. It relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, changes what constitutes serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility, increases the penalty for misrepresentation and clarifies that entering with the assistance of organized criminal activity does not on its own lead to inadmissibility.

In case there is any confusion, New Democrats will support this legislation getting to committee. I want to quote the member for Newton—North Delta who, as the NDP immigration critic, has done a tremendous amount of work on this file. In her speech on September 24, she indicated that she wanted to make clear the following:

—that as New Democrats we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing of serious criminals who are not citizens.

All Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent, crimes in our communities. Newcomers in our communities, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding and follow the rules, would be among the first to agree with this sentiment.

However, she went on to say that we do have some serious concerns about the bill being proposed. One of the concerns she outlined was that it again concentrates powers with the minister. Part of the concern that the member raised was the fact that our immigration system does not need to be more politicized than it already is. Whenever we start seeing increased concentration of powers in the minister's hands, it removes parliamentary oversight from some of those activities and removes it from the department itself, which often operates in a more arm's-length way.

One of the other items she raised is that:

Another troubling feature for us in the bill is that the bill relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, taking into account the interests of children affected. In our view, ignoring the interests of children is not something the minister should be relieved of.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of war resisters. War resisters at the time were not permanent residents, but it has been an issue that has come before the House a number of times, including a motion that supported allowing war resisters to remain in this country. We recently had the case of the war resister Kimberly Rivera, who asked the government to grant permanent residence status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The NDP's British Columbia caucus wrote a letter to the minister indicating that we had joined prominent Canadians and international advocates, including Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in calling on the minister to allow Ms. Rivera to stay in Canada with her family. The letter mentioned the fact that Ms. Rivera had children while she was living here and that there were many other factors to consider.

I want to mention another war resister who, unfortunately, was deported from my riding a couple of years ago. It was a young man named Cliff Cornell who had been living on Gabriola. He was a quiet young man. He had joined the forces in the United States. He grew up in a mountain home in Arkansas and in 2002 after leaving high school and with few employment prospects he had accepted a $5,000 signing bonus for a career in the U.S. Army. A few months later the U.S. went to war against Iraq. He deserted and came to Canada in 2005 to avoid combat. It was a case of a young man who grew up in very poor circumstances and ended up perhaps not really understanding what he was getting into. He ended up in Canada. He was well liked and well supported by the community on Gabriola. He found a job there. He was a responsible citizen and yet ended up being deported.

With regard to Bill C-43, there was a recent article in the Toronto Star entitled, “Bill could exile thousands of permanent residents for minor crimes”. The article indicates that under the proposed new law, thousands of permanent residents could lose their status and be deported for minor convictions, from shoplifting to traffic and drug offences, according to Canada’s top immigration lawyers.

These are young children brought to Canada at a young age as permanent residents, raised and schooled in Canada, but who never took out citizenship.

It goes on in the article to say that the federal government has always had the authority to strip landed immigrant status from a permanent resident convicted of a serious crime, but Bill C-43 would allow appeals only for those sentenced to less than six months in jail, down from the current threshold of two years.

As our immigration critic pointed out, with some of the changes in the Conservatives' crime legislation with the mandatory minimums, we now see people getting sentenced for some minor crime to more than six months, so they would not be eligible for any kind of process under this new legislation.

The article also talked about the fact that people may have misrepresented themselves when they applied for immigration. It points out that there could be honest omissions on a person's employment history, or incorrect dates of certain events written down in an immigration application could come back to haunt the immigrant years later.

It is also indicated in here that it is very likely that this could face a court challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions directing that authorities must consider humanitarian risk factors before deporting a person.

I want to reiterate the fact that New Democrats are in support of getting the bill to committee, but we are calling on the government to consider looking at some amendments that could actually make this a better bill. I will end on that note.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit shocked by what I just heard from my hon. colleague.

I was a police officer for quite some time in the city of Winnipeg and dealt with what my colleague referred to as minor offences on a number of occasions, so I am quite shocked when I hear my colleague refer to these offences that are punishable by at least six months as being what she termed minor, offences like assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, break and enter. These, to me, are not minor in any way, shape or form. These are crimes that involve victims.

I would ask my learned colleague if she would clarify. Does she really stand by what she just said, that these crimes—sexual assault, assault with a weapon, robbery—these crimes punishable by at least six months, are minor?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly happy to correct the record. I was quoting from Canada's top immigration lawyers who said:

Under a proposed new law, thousands of permanent residents could lose their status and be deported for minor convictions.

It is the immigration lawyers who said this. I was not saying it. I was quoting from an article.

I want to quote, however, the member for Newton—North Delta, who said:

I want to make it clear that as New Democrats we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens.

I want to be clear. I will repeat that. New Democrats want to see a responsive judicial approach to removing serious criminals.

I hope that is clear enough for the parliamentary secretary.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a correctional officer for many years, and I must say that my hon. colleague made some excellent points. I have seen many immigration cases.

Our position is clear: victims are always important to us. We must never forget the conditions that many immigrants may have faced in their country of origin. We have heard stories of torture, malnutrition and disease. Sending our problems elsewhere is not a solution. I see a serious problem with inviting people into our country, only to turn around and tell them they are not our concern, that this is an exclusive club, and then deport them without sharing any of the positive aspects of our society.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the concerns that New Democrats have raised is that the bill concentrates far too much discretion within the minister's hands, and it also modifies the issue around humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Of course, Canadians have long been known for their approach around examining humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and it would be a shame if Canada stopped looking at that in the context of reviewing these kinds of decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief with my question. When we talk about the individuals that this legislation could potentially impact, we are talking about a lot of young people and young families. Therefore, we could have an immigrant family that came to Canada 15 or 16 years ago with a five-year-old child who at 18 years of age is caught doing something inappropriate, such as growing more than six marijuana plants in the garage, or something of that nature, which automatically carries a six-month minimum sentence, at which point this individual would then be deported. The rest of the family can stay, but this particular youth would be deported with no right of appeal.

Could my colleague comment on the issues of that nature, which are very real?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member hits on a very good point. The immigration lawyers who have raised concerns about this have raised that very issue. They are saying that the law will target permanent residents, many of whom arrived in Canada at a young age and were raised, educated and established families and businesses here. It would seem reasonable that those kinds of circumstances were taken into consideration when the file was being reviewed, so the member is absolutely correct.

Again, the New Democrats are supporting getting this bill to committee with the hope that these kinds of clauses in the bill can be amended so that they more reflect what has been a tradition in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the whips and I believe if you seek it you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to defer the vote of this motion to the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 16, 2012.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the chief government whip have consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the deferred division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 16, at the end of government orders.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is there agreement to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.