Mr. Speaker, this bill has serious, serious problems. Reform Party members elevated this issue of crime and immigration. We focused the public's attention and anger. We forced the minister who began his term as minister by stating there was no problem with crime and immigrants to introduce these measures. It may seem a bit ironic that after doing that, we are now opposing this bill.
I can assure this House and all Canadians that the Reform Party does not oppose getting tough on newcomers to Canada who break our laws. We do not oppose many of the specific measures in this bill. What we do oppose is the minister's attempt to sell this package of minor reforms as a package that will significantly address the problems of undesirable immigrants in Canada. We oppose the notion that this bill will somehow fix any of the major problems that are plaguing immigration to Canada.
We need to look no further than a few very recent high profile instances of criminal immigrants to see what effect this legislation would have. I will give away the surprise by telling members that Bill C-44 would have done nothing to prevent these tragedies.
First is the much publicized case of Clinton Gayle who is suspected of the murder of Constable Todd Baylis. Mr. Gayle came to the country legally. Mr. Gayle had a removal order issued against him. Mr. Gayle evaded that deportation order not by running and not by tying up the system with appeals. Rather, Mr. Gayle avoided removal because his file was lost. Mr. Gayle avoided capture and removal because the system was overworked, because priorities for removal were confused. It is more likely than not, although we will never know, because someone dropped the ball.
Bill C-44 does nothing to change the priorities of immigration enforcement. It does nothing to ensure that the system is less overworked than it is now. It does not address the problem and this problem is just as fundamental and troublesome as the actual issuance of removal orders, namely, the capture and physical removal of those who are issued removal orders.
The second case that has outraged Canadians and has illustrated the deficiencies both in immigration and in the priorities of this government was the very recent case of one Mr. Forbes. He is currently being sought for the senseless shooting of several people in Toronto over the weekend.
Tragically two of those people died at the hands of this individual. Mr. Forbes who is also from Jamaica came to Canada on a visitor's visa, as so many illegal entrants do. He overstayed that visa and a deportation order was issued. Rather surprisingly, he was removed from Canada.
I say surprisingly because the numbers of people who are removed because of an overstay on a visa are very small indeed. These cases while important tend not to receive a high priority from an overworked immigration enforcement bureau.
One must keep in mind that this took place in the mid-1980s, during a time when the number of immigrants to Canada was roughly one-third of what it currently is. Those reasonable numbers actually permitted the immigration department to do its job.
Nonetheless Mr. Forbes returned to Canada. He was again ordered deported and he again left the country. To no one's surprise he came back again and the results of his return have been tragic.
I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all Canadians to publicly offer my sincerest condolences to the families of those two people who were struck down by this madman and also to the other victims who were shot. I am sure all members of this House join me in offering our sincerest hopes for a speedy and full recovery.
Too often in the heat of political debate we forget about the victims and concentrate only on the perpetrator. However there
are victims here and they highlight the urgency that we must feel as we look for solutions to the problem of violent non-citizens.
The Forbes case illustrates several things. First, it illustrates the importance of enforcement in the immigration system. We can issue removal orders until we are blue in the face. We can try to stop the system from being abused. We can adopt a one strike and you are out policy for those immigrants and visitors who violate Canada's laws.
However what good does that do when we do not have any officers to carry out those removals, and I can assure you we do not. In the region of Toronto where a vast majority of deportable criminals reside, there are a total of 30 investigation and enforcement officers. That used to be 36. Before he decided to get tough, the minister cut that number. He also cut overtime staff in the Vancouver region. There simply is not the staff to find deportables.
Currently there is a backlog of deportations that best estimates put at around 40,000. Bill C-44 would do nothing at all to ensure the speedy removal of those people. Bill C-44 will probably just add to the backlog.
Second, Bill C-44 shows the laxity with which visas and immigration permits are granted.
It is my understanding Mr. Forbes came into the country for the last time, sponsored by his wife, despite the fact that he had been removed from the country twice before. I asked the minister yesterday, and did not receive an answer, why would someone who has been removed with a deportation order twice for whatever reason be allowed back into the country. The spokesperson for the department was reported as saying that Mr. Forbes had been removed for reasons other than criminality in the past.
Mr. Forbes had intentionally violated Canada's law by overstaying a visa. He had intentionally violated and flouted Canada's immigration laws. These violations do not carry a sentence of more than 10 years. Thus, according to the terms of Bill C-44 Mr. Forbes would not be found in violation of the act to a degree that would warrant his permanent removal from Canada. That simply does not make sense.
There are other very serious problems that the bill does not address that undermine the very integrity of the immigration policy in Canada.
Over the summer I released a document that came from the department of immigration which outlined guidelines for fast tracking through the refugee system various categories of people who in the minds of some senior bureaucrats and refugee advocates were self-evidently refugees. This included armed insurgents, former and present guerrillas, former and present members of such anti-democratic and even genocidal regimes like the Mengistu regime and the former communist government of Afghanistan, very choice members of Canadian society indeed.
These people, I have to reiterate, are not only being allowed to make refugee claims, they are being fast tracked after they admit to participation in these regimes.
I know that these folks might face persecution in their home countries and that is a good enough reason for some people in Canada's immigration industry to invite them in. In the words of one spokesperson for the Canadian Council for Refugees, it does not matter if people are torturers or terrorists, if they face persecution, they deserve refugee status in Canada. Those are his words.
I am willing to wager that most of my fellow Canadians would call that silly logic and certainly not agree with the idea that these are the sorts of people who deserve to be at the top of our list for refugee status, but currently they are.
Despite what some misinformed voices have said there are no background checks for criminality, for war crimes or for crimes against humanity done at the refugee hearing stage. Very recently the Immigration and Refugee Board told its refugee hearing officers that they were not even allowed to conduct checks through Interpol or other such recognized sources. No background checks can be performed on a refugee claimant until after they have been accepted as refugees. Often that is when the information comes forward, after they are in the system and making an application for permanent residence.
Bill C-44 will allow a refugee hearing to be halted if a criminal record is found but the bill does not give adequate power to the refugee hearing officers to undertake a thorough background check of all applicants for refugee status. It does not override the orders of the Immigration and Refugee Board to refrain from conducting background searches.
As with enforcement and as with the granting of permanent residency, this bill proves itself to be on the right track. It even displays good intentions but it does not have teeth.
If Bill C-44 is implemented I am willing to predict the following. The effect will not have an increase in the amount of deportations. It will not have an effect of clearing the system of appeals and bogus refugee claims. It will not significantly increase the onus on the refugees to prove that they have clean histories before being allowed into Canada.
I know as a former police officer that laws are a good first step but they only work when there are individuals who have the means and the authority to carry them out, to make sure that they are enforced. I have shown with only two examples of serious
immigrant offenders that Bill C-44 would not have the effect of getting rid of the people we most need to get rid of.
Further, I have shown that Bill C-44 does not address the fundamental problem of an Immigration and Refugee Board that is stacked with members of the immigration industry, political appointees not working in the best interests of Canadians and who, it would appear, have an agenda to accept as many refugees without question as possible.
Bill C-44 does not do the job. If the minister had announced a bill that tackled only one area of the Immigration Act, let us say criminal refugees, and then revamped the working of the Immigration and Refugee Board to add teeth to the act then it would have my full support. The minister has taken a shotgun approach and has hit in Bill C-44 a number of different areas of immigration law, all of which are troublesome, but left huge gaping holes in our system and has not backed up any of his proposed changes with staff that have real power to make the measures work.
I applaud the minister for listening to the people and to the Reform Party. I only wish it had not taken so long. I truly wish it had not taken tragedies to make him stop listening to those out there who insist that there can never be problems in immigration.
Further, I applaud the minister for taking the initiative to act and to table legislation that at least takes a crack at toughening up the system. I applaud him for stripping the power of the IAD to overturn deportation orders on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I only wish he had not gone half way. The minister knows how to toughen up the system. Starting with cutting the numbers down to a level that our immigration department can handle would be a good beginning, then revamping the IRB, taking power away from the irresponsible and unaccountable appointed members, giving refugee hearing officers the ability to do full and thorough background checks before refugee status is determined.
There are so many measures, not simple measures but obvious ones, that could have gone into this bill if there had been the political will to do so. There was not. I am not talking about minor technicalities. The Reform Party would not oppose this legislation if the problems were minor, but this bill has such gaping holes it fails to address the most important issues that we simply cannot give it support. We simply cannot allow the Canadian people to be lulled into a false sense of security.
The minister's task force was a small step but he heralded it as though the problems in enforcement had been solved. They have not. The success or lack of success of the task force speaks volumes to the insignificance of the measure.
With Bill C-44 the minister is trying to tell the Canadian people that Canada is cracking down on those who violate our laws and abuse our system. We are doing no such thing until we address the real issues. We cannot support any immigration bill that makes itself out to be the be all and end all of a strategy to take care of the problems of criminal immigration.
I would urge all members of this House to send a clear message to the minister. Vote against this bill, not because you oppose specific measures in it, not because you oppose the broad intent, but because you want real change in immigration law, because you want to answer responsibly to your constituents who have been demanding change, radical change, because you want immigration to work once more, to be a boon to the country and not a cause of grief.
I urge you to send a message to this minister that things really need to change. This bill simply does not offer enough.
