Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2012

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[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.

Business of the House

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, during the debate tonight pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.