Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I will attempt, at this second reading stage, to highlight some questions that Bill C-44 raises. But before doing so, I would like to discuss the philosophy underlying the legislative amendments that we are debating today.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced in June that he intended to make considerable amendments to the Immigration Act in order to, and I quote: "take all measures necessary to prevent abuses and to protect the Canadian public against criminals".
We are very pleased with that. Nobody, and least of all the members from the Official opposition, would blame a government for trying to protect its citizens. So, the ministerial position is that immigrants and people claiming refugee status cannot use Canadian laws or Canada's reputation as a welcoming country to escape their own country when they have committed serious crimes or to commit new crimes here. We agree with that measure.
We also recognize the importance of a quick and efficient enforcement of deportation measures if we are to prevent criminals from committing other crimes. Thus, there is in this House a rare and remarkable unanimity on the objective, that is the protection of Canadian citizens. However, as nothing is ever perfect, we will reserve our judgment for now on the means chosen by the government for reaching that goal. Many issues are not quite clear to us yet. For example, we wonder about the seriousness of criminality and the link between crime and the immigration process. We also question the motivation behind government's actions. Finally, we would like to see the proposed means analyzed thoroughly.
First of all, let me reassure my colleagues of the House and tell them that I share their indignation towards the crimes committed daily in Canada and in Quebec. All our efforts should be directed to abolishing, or at least reducing crime.
On the other hand, I do not feel it would be appropriate to take into account the public response to criminal acts, and particularly violent crimes, in order to adopt repressive and unjustified legislation. The question is of interest and deserves our attention.
Every day, in this House and outside, we hear detailed descriptions of crimes. We also hear about people denouncing the increasing criminality in our society. And then, some people make a connection between criminality and the immigration process. What is the reality?
Even if people have the feeling that the crime rate is increasing, such is not the case. It has been demonstrated in a study on victimization published by Statistics Canada. That document states that the possibility of being a victim of aggression or theft was the same in 1993 as in 1989. Moreover, another study from the same agency called Statistics on Criminality in Canada, 1993 concludes that for the second year in a row, the crime rate established by police organizations went down in 1993. In fact, the 5 per cent reduction from one year to the next was the largest since we began collecting statistics on crime, in 1962.
The author of the study, who is the senior analyst for the policing program, explains that the very violent crime rate is slightly lower whereas a slight increase in less violent crimes was noted as well as a reduction of about 6 per cent in property crimes.
Therefore, we can see, in spite of popular belief, that there was no increase in the crime rate. As I said, I do not want to trivialize criminal acts, but simply set the record straight. I think, however, that we would be justified to ask ourselves why people feel that way. We can perhaps find the answer in the importance given by the media or the politicians to some individual cases.
Let us go back now to the subject of the debate, that is criminality among the immigrant population. An Angus Reid opinion poll published in June examined the perceived relationship between ethnic origin and crime rate. The results were interesting.
First, the pollster noticed a significant difference between the western and eastern parts of Canada. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 58 per cent of those polled saw a relation between a person's ethnic origin and criminal activities. This proportion dropped to 36 per cent in the Atlantic provinces. So there is a considerable geographic difference.
Another difference was perceived in the way men and women see the issue. While 56 per cent of men associated ethnic origin with criminal activity, only 45 per cent of women agreed. The division is almost the same between seniors and people under 35, that is 55 per cent compared to 46 per cent.
While the perceived association is well established, could it be mistaken? Such is the conclusion of Mr. Derrick Thomas, senior researcher for the Citizenship and Immigration Department.
Last year, Mr. Thomas published the results of research he had done on the relationship between ethnic origin and a tendency towards criminality. He found no proof that such a relationship exists. On the contrary, immigrants, who last year represented 20.2 per cent of Canadians, accounted for only 11.9 per cent of people in detention or on parole. This is a significant difference, and compels us to reject any attempt to link immigration to crime.
At this time, it is proper to remind the House that the minister of that same organization is the very one who wants to impose new standards with the express objective of preventing abuses of the system by immigrants.
Another point also deserves some consideration: the immigrants' level of education. Experts generally agree that socioeconomic conditions can sometimes be criminality factors. So, the poor with a low level of education are more likely to increase the crime figures. Yet, according to Statistics Canada, more immigrants have university degrees than individuals born in Canada-3 per cent more. Moreover, immigrants who arrived between 1981 and 1991 had more schooling than immigrants who arrived before 1981.
From all these figures, we can draw the following conclusions: first, there is no real link with the perception that the crime rate is increasing in Canada. Second, there is no link between immigration and crime; on the contrary, immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in Canada. Finally, if we are to believe that the more people are educated the less they commit crime, immigrants will be less and less represented in crime statistics.
As was already said, we wonder about the underlying motives for these legislative amendments. Is the government trying to put to rest the fears of the public? We know these fears are real. Indeed, according to the Angus Reid poll mentioned earlier, 82 per cent of the respondents believe our justice system is not strict enough. English Canadians rated crime as their second biggest concern, immediately following unemployment and job creation. In Quebec, however, crime rated much lower and only came after economic revival, education and social services.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to mention how Quebec society is distinct, even in this area. This high percentage shows how much the public fears for its own security. The government took note of it and has introduced, since its coming to power, several pieces of legislation to strengthen the rules concerning criminals.
Fine. However, we have to ask ourselves if this is the most efficient way to curb crime. Since socio economic conditions are an important factor, we are entitled to wonder if real measures to create jobs would not be more appropriate. We are entitled to wonder if the direction taken by this government is not more political than functional. Why, indeed, is nothing done to ensure that young people can find jobs when they get out of school? Why is nothing done to provide poor families with decent housing? Why is nothing done to really ensure women are safe in our society?
The issue of women is very important here. Women whose security is often threatened know that the threat does not come from immigrants or young people. But the government is attacking these two categories of people. There is a problem here and it raises some questions.
We are also questioning the measures proposed to meet the objectives of protecting the public and preventing abuse. Bill C-44 focuses on four main subjects: crime among refugee claimants, the contraband of immigration documents, the right of appeal and the processing of claims coming from rehabilitated persons. For each of the problems identified, measures are proposed whose final purpose is to screen out persons who committed serious crimes or who try to abuse the system.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, we agree that the laws must be respected. However, the means proposed by the minister to promote that need a closer look.
We think that some of these need to be seriously re-examined to see if the government is not trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. First of all, it wants to limit access to our refugee status determination process so that a person who has been convicted of a serious crime in another country will not be able to apply for refugee status.
At first glance, this restriction seems logical. Nobody wants Canada to become a haven for criminals. But it raises some questions. Some experts in immigration law have expressed concern over this restriction, particularly in light of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
We think that the bill will need to be seriously examined in order to ensure that Canada respects the spirit and the letter of the Geneva convention. Other questions have been raised concerning the right to appeal the Immigration and Refugee Board's decisions.
Another provision that could be a problem is the one concerning documents. Immigration officers will now be able to seize and open all documents and objects suspected of being used for fraud, and this will be possible anywhere in Canada. The first question that comes to mind immediately is the possibility of a violation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
How will this new provision be received by the courts? How will they receive the reversal of the burden of proof in clause 18? We know that the courts have a tendency to resist legislative provisions in which a person is presumed guilty. Will the Minister not have any other solutions to reduce trafficking in immigration documents?
How do we justify seizing items without even trying to define their nature in any way? Those are, briefly put, the questions and concerns raised by Bill C-44. We do know that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigrations will take them up one by one in order to improve this piece of legislation.
However, by way of conclusion, I would like to remind this House that all these legislative amendments seem to draw their first motivation from isolated cases such as that of Mr. Gayle, of Toronto. The objective pursued by the Minister is to ensure that criminals are not welcomed into Canada. Foreign criminals will be turned away and immigrants and refugees who commit serious crimes in Canada will be deported.
But we will have to deal with more contentious cases like those where a person has been living in Canada since childhood. Will we expel to his or her country of origin a person who does not have that country's citizenship? Surely not. How can we seriously think that a person who came to Canada at the age of three and is now an adult still has links with his or her country of origin? How will the courts apply such a policy?
We agree that the security of Canadian citizens must be protected. However, we believe that we have first of all to determine what is the source of this threat to security. We then have to determine what are the most efficient and the most respectful means to be adopted in order to protect citizens and to welcome people in need, a category to which bona fide refugees undoubtedly belong.
