Gar Knutson

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my colleague's question but let me say this. The guts of what this bill is about-

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with honour that I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-44.

Leaving my prepared text for a minute, I want to say that many of the concerns brought forward by the Reform Party relating to enforcement and the resources in the department are also shared by the minister, all Canadians and myself. We live in difficult fiscal times and budget constraints are a reality for many departments. I know that probably the finance minister was listening with real interest when people said that we should spend more money in the immigration department. The minister of immigration would probably support that.

Let me begin by talking a little about my riding. I come from an area where immigration is an important issue but certainly not one of the main issues. My riding is on the north shore of Lake Erie. It has been settled by wave after wave of immigration, like many parts of this country have been. Originally it was settled by people from Britain, primarily by Scots. More recent-

ly it was settled by the Dutch community in the 1950s. We have recently had Portuguese immigrants.

We have a long tradition of recognizing the importance of immigration to this country and to our communities. Everybody is concerned about making sure that Canada has the right type of immigrants, that we are the ones who are doing the selecting and not others selecting us. We want to have an appropriate system in place. If a criminal comes to this country and commits a crime, we want to have certain mechanisms in place. If they are a danger to Canadians this mechanism will allow us to get them out fairly quickly, with reasonable recognition that they have legal rights. We want to kick out the right people, not the wrong people.

That is why we want to put in place a proper process. I stand in support of Bill C-44 because I believe it does that. I am sure members will think, after listening to my speech and the speech of my colleague who spoke before me, that one of us could not have been listening at the immigration committee or one of us is patently wrong. I will try to point that out as I go along.

The key aspect I like about the bill is that it will remove the right to appeal to the immigration appeal division of the refugee board when the minister has made a determination that the person is a danger to Canadian society and has committed a crime with a maximum sentence of more than 10 years.

To understand why that is important we need to understand the process now. Let us say my colleague is a landed immigrant who commits an assault or a series of assaults. He does his time in jail. Then he comes out and the department says that it wants to kick him out. He can appeal to the immigration and appeal division and ask to stay in Canada simply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Whether or not we agree with that the system as it stands now has a three-year wait. That is inexcusable. We have a process in place that says we want him out of the country because we think he is dangerous and the criminal can say that on humanitarian and compassionate grounds he wants to stay. We should have a mechanism in place that at least decides that question fairly quickly. A three-year wait is just unacceptable.

Another thing that concerns me about the immigration and appeal division doing its work is the people on the board who determine whether someone is a refugee. We would want people that would give applicants the benefit of the doubt. They should be fairly liberal in their views and have a good understanding of circumstances in other countries. I am not sure whether the same person should be putting the mechanism in place, controlling the mechanism and deciding whether to deport somebody.

I do not think anyone wants to deport someone. It is difficult to do and one has to be fairly tough minded to do it. I am not sure we want the same sort of character making judgments about who is a refugee. We want to be more liberal in our determination of refugees and fairly tough minded in our determination of who should be deported.

The criteria determining when someone will lose their right to appeal is fairly straightforward. First there is the 10-year rule, which means if a person commits a crime he has to be sentenced up to a maximum of 10 years. That mechanism will ensure we are not using this rule or law for trivial matters. Simple things like shoplifting or writing a cheque under $1,000 will not get someone kicked out of the country. That is appropriate. More serious crimes such as rape, assault and murder will get someone kicked out of the country.

Another rule being applied is that the minister must make a determination that the person is a danger to the country. While some offences, oddly enough like writing a cheque for more than $1,000, make one eligible for up to 10 years in jail, I do not think any of us would say: "We want to deport you for that". Maybe some of my colleagues across the way would say that the person should be deported for that.

Clearly the law is saying that one has to be a dangerous criminal, a danger to Canadian society, someone who we think will perhaps assault, rape or murder again. Those are the people we want to kick out of the country.

Some very difficult questions arise. I know the minister does not have an answer and Canadians will have to determine the answer. Let us say we have someone who comes here when they are six years old. Their parents, for whatever reasons, do not apply to make them Canadian citizens; they forget or whatever. These persons go through life not realizing they are not Canadian citizens. If they commit a serious crime at 25 years of age, do we kick them out, even though other persons in the same circumstances simply because their parents went through the process of making them Canadian citizens when they were seven, eight, or nine years of age did not get kicked out? They might have committed the same crime.

Say someone comes here at six months of age. They are from an Asian country or any country dissimilar to ours. Are we going to take people who have virtually lived here all their lives, except for maybe the first six months, and deport them simply because they have not become Canadian citizens?

Many people in Canada would say that was their tough luck and if they have committed crimes they should be put out. I am not sure it is that simple. That is something we have to work out, because there is no provision in law that if people come to this country before a certain age they will be able to stay here. The definition is clearly that if one is a Canadian citizen one stays

and if one is not a Canadian citizen and is a danger to Canadian society one has to go.

We have touched on the issue of criminality. I noted the Chair asked us to use language that was sensitive. When we talk about immigrants and criminals we risk getting into the trap of taking an identifiable group, foreigners by definition, and blaming them for things they ought not to be blamed for. There are many cases in history where people in a community have whipped up resentment against an identifiable group of outsiders, oftentimes foreigners, to support a particular political ideology. When we touch on the issue of immigration and criminals we risk getting into that game.

By way of a backdrop, I want to point out that the overwhelming majority of immigrants and refugees are decent, hard working and law-abiding people. They appeal to Canada for protection because they need our help. Others come to contribute to Canada's economic progress while others seek to be reunited with their families.

However there are exceptions. In recent months there have been a few highly publicized cases of criminals claiming to be refugees, and refugee claimants and immigrants breaking our laws while in Canada. It needs to be understood that these are the exceptions.

If we look at Canadian jails and survey whether the people in our jails were born in Canada or elsewhere, we discover that the immigrant population in our jails is lower than the general population as a whole. Statistics show that immigrants who come to the country are hard working. Oftentimes they are more hard working than the general population as a whole and commit fewer crimes. That does not mean there is not the odd exception, and this bill is about dealing with the odd exception. The government takes these exceptions seriously. The government is taking a number of steps to ensure the system is not open to abuse and that Canadian society is protected.

My friend across the way indicated in his remarks that the minister could kick someone out whenever he wants. The member has his facts wrong. I know the heckles are about to start. Let us say a landed immigrant or a permanent resident-and these words can be used interchangeably-commits a crime and does a sentence. Let us say the person is a danger to society. The government can bring about a process fairly quickly to have him deported. However the person can ask to have it stayed and appeal to immigration and Refugee Board on humanitarian grounds. Such persons can say: "I am sorry. I throw myself on the mercy of the country". Maybe the person has a wife or children here; maybe he has a job and circumstances have changed. He can bring forth all sorts of arguments. Unfortunately, as I said, that is a three-year delay. In law, the minister does not have the right to interfere in that process. That right to appeal is in the Immigration Act and is in law and the minister must follow the law.

My colleague across the way has said that the rules in place now will do the trick. Unfortunately he is wrong. They will not do the trick, but Bill C-44 will take a step forward in terms of helping to deport landed immigrants who should be deported.

The government has proposed changes to the immigration law that will help prevent immigration fraud and abuse by criminals. Among the most important amendments are changes that prohibit people convicted of serious crimes from claiming refugee status. It also has to be determined that they are dangerous. This applies whether the crime took place in Canada or anywhere else.

It will remove from the immigration and refugee board the power to allow serious criminals to be in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and to give the minister or his delegates sole authority to do so. This means we can move fairly quickly.

My colleague across the way has suggested that they will still be able to appeal. He has that part right. They will still be able to appeal to the federal court on issues of law, not on issues of fact and law. They will be able to appeal to the federal court, but if they took some time to examine the federal court process they would find they need to have leave to appeal to the federal court. It is not a right. Instead of taking three years, which is the case under the current system, that process will take about 30 days. They may say that three years or 30 days makes no difference, but most Canadians will say that a faster process is a better process.

Had they asked that question at the immigration committee they would have found that this is a much quicker process. If they do not believe me, I encourage them to check it out.

Because it is done by appeal the federal court can deal with it by leave. The federal court can deal with it very promptly. They will not be able to appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Appealing on law is a very technical appeal. It is not something that is easily done. It is not something that can be done summarily or just on a whim. It has to be based on clear legal arguments.

It is different from an appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I might ask my colleagues across the way to appreciate the substance of the difference, to appreciate that it is an important difference, and to give the government credit for changing the process from three years to 30 days.

How serious is the problem? It is very serious. Right now the government estimates there is probably about 1,200 people whom it would like to deport and not give the right of appeal to the immigration and refugee board on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Six hundred of those people are in jail.

Many people in my community want to see the government get the bill through quickly and bring about a process by which these people will be deported because they are a danger to Canadian society.

What else is the act going to do? As my colleagues have mentioned, it is going to give immigration officers the power to seize identity documents from the international mail that might be used by impostors for fraudulent and improper purposes. My colleagues have made the argument that the staff is under-resourced. Yes, it is. The police department can say it is under-resourced, that it does not have enough police to do the job. Does that mean that the law itself is bad? Does that mean giving them the power to do it is bad?

If the Reform Party wants to make an argument to spend more money on our immigration department, it should make it to the finance committee. It will be part of the budget considerations, and away we go; it may actually see something happen.

The act will make sure a person can have only one refugee claim process at a time. This makes common sense. Someone wanting to abuse the system can put in a refugee claim in Vancouver and perhaps open a file in Toronto or wherever. Also the act will make sure that any application for citizenship is put on hold until all immigration investigations or proceedings are completed.

I come to another point mentioned by my colleague. A citizenship and immigration-RCMP task force has been established in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to co-ordinate and ensure the removal of people with serious criminal convictions who have evaded removal orders. Local police will assist the task force to which 20 RCMP officers have been assigned: 12 in Toronto and 4 each in Montreal and Vancouver.

Again they can make the argument that it is not enough. They come up with a figure of 25,000 removal orders in Toronto. Let us say my friend sitting beside me is a landed immigrant whom we want to kick out and he says: "Fine, I will leave". We do not have a mechanism in place or we do not have controls at our border watching the people leave. It may well be that he leaves, but unless he tells us that he has left we do not know whether he has.

To suggest that because there are 25,000 removal orders none of these people have left simply on their own recognizance is really playing with the facts. It is trying to whip up hysteria in Toronto that there is a massive underground of illegal immigrants and dangerous criminals when the truth of it is not anywhere close to that. There is a problem. Let us deal with the problem but let us not inflame it with numbers like 25,000. It is ridiculous.

I come back to my point that 12 RCMP officers are not enough. If we give them good law to work with let us see how they do and we can come back in a year's time and take a look.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is examining the question of how immigration should respond to young offenders who are not Canadians citizens convicted of a serious crime. That is a tough one. We are going to kick someone out who is 12 or 13 years old. Maybe their parents have not done anything, are permanent residents, landed and are not Canadian citizens yet. What are we going to do to a 13-year-old who commits a serious crime of assault? I do not know. I do not know that the minister knows. I do not know that any of us in this Chamber really knows. At some point we are going to have to try to exercise the wisdom of Solomon.

The government believes that immigration is a benefit to Canada and that Canada should maintain its international reputation for assisting refugees and welcoming immigrants. However, the government also believes that a good immigration program must promptly manage to protect Canadians. The government is committed to move as quickly as possible to make these changes to ensure the integrity of the Canadian immigration and refugee system.

In closing, I would point out to Canadians that I think there is real substance in this bill. Taking away the right to appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in some very specific circumstances I think is the right thing to do where someone is clearly a danger to Canadian society.

When we talk to the immigrant communities they are tired of being tarnished with the brush of being what some people in the political spectrum want. They know when immigrants commit crimes that good, hard working new Canadians are often the ones who bear the penalty the most. They are the ones who want to make sure that hard working decent immigrants or new Canadians are the ones who want fairly tough criteria for deporting people and that serious criminals are actually deported promptly without much delay. If the Reform Party would actually look at the substance of the bill and do its homework it too would support the bill.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval for same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present three petitions signed by well over 100 people.

The first petition asks Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, each Sunday at 5.30 p.m. a program called "Street Sense" is broadcast on CBC television. "Street Sense" is aimed at young consumers. It is hip and funny and its humour both informs and entertains its adolescent audience on environmental and economic issues.

Because this program is about consumers it is commercial free. It operates on a limited $1 million budget, obtained not

from the CBC but from companies, associations, foundations and government programs such as "Stay In School".

The awards that "Street Sense" have received are too numerous to list but are both national and international. "Street Sense" is where the future of public broadcasting must go. It is financially viable but in a format that is unavailable through commercial enterprise. Both enterprise and young consumers benefit.

Once again, that is "Street Sense" Sundays at 5.30 p.m. Bravo to the CBC.

[Ethanol, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the recent trade mission the government led to the People's Republic of China has been a great success.

One of the agreements signed by Canadian business while in China was the building of an ethanol plant. The people of China will benefit greatly from ethanol. So will the environment of Asia, Chinese farmers and industry. This technology can also benefit Canada.

The proposed ethanol plant to be located at Chatham, Ontario will ensure that this country does not have to rely on foreign produced ethanol and, as in China, our agricultural industry will be able to count on a stable consumer of corn.

Ethanol makes economic and environmental sense. I praise the Chinese government for showing interest in this technology.

[Child Tax Benefit, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last week Campaign 2000 released statistics indicating that there were 331,000 more poor children in Canada than there were five years ago. Given this deplorable situation, can the minister tell this House about his commitment to the goal of an enhanced child tax benefit?

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the question. I think the debate between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party is not only on the size of the cuts but where they are made. I do not want to underestimate the impact of that debate.

My understanding of the numbers is the finance minister is looking for roughly a little over $3 billion to meet his targets for the following February and an additional over $3 billion for a total of six. I may not have a proper understanding of that but I did not think it was nine. I thought it was slightly over six.

Whether it is $6 billion or $9 billion I agree that we need to make our target of 3 per cent of GDP within three years and some people are going to be hurt by that. I know the member did listen but I would like to remind him of what I said. I think some of the money should be found from a tax increase. I think it is outrageous when the top 20 per cent of income earners in this country are getting 44 per cent of the income while the bottom 20 per cent only get 2.7 per cent. It is patently outrageous. It is unfair and it is wrong.

I do not think we need a $15,000 annual limit on RRSPs. This limit helps people with an annual marginal tax rate of 50 per cent and that is the well off.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

First I would point out that the UI program as with every government program has to be sustainable. I would suggest that a program that has grown from an expenditure of roughly $4 billion to over $18 billion in the space of 10 years is not sustainable. That is one of the reasons why the UI program needed to be reformed.

The other reason it needed to be reformed was that it did not do a very good job in terms of helping people get back to work. Consequently that is why the Minister of Human Resources Development announced or started his social policy review.

I think the issue of unemployment insurance needs to go hand in hand with the concept that the best social security is for someone to have a job. That is why we need to spend more money on training and that sort of thing and perhaps less on benefits.