House of Commons Hansard #95 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.

Topics

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

On the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Debate.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in the debate on second reading of Bill C-44, which proposes amendments to the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act and the Customs Act.

Before getting into the details of this bill, I would like to offer a few observations and comments that should make us think about the impact of the decisions we will be asked to make ask a result of Bill C-44.

In part I of Canada's immigration policy document, when referring to the broad objectives, paragraphs (i) and (j) clearly state the needs, and I quote: i ) to maintain and protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society; and j ) to promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to persons who are likely to engage in criminal activity.

Obviously, the party I represent fully agrees with this position. These are principles and objectives that we support because they reflect a broad consensus in a society that is based on the rule of law.

There are also a number of concerns directly related to Bill C-44 which remain essential to an understanding of the issues.

During the consultations on immigration conducted recently by the minister, someone said that intolerance was the biggest growth industry in Canada. Intolerance produces hysteria, racism and fear, so that reality becomes clouded by one's perception of reality. That is why the public has been led to believe for some time that criminal immigrants are countless in our society. It will soon come to think that crime is a characteristic of immigrants.

So, we must firmly oppose the spreading of deformed and false information about immigration that prevents a trust relationship from being created between the welcoming society and immigrants.

Last year, an in-house study by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration reminded us that there are no links between the ethnic origin and a propensity to crime. Unlike what some popular trend would lead us to believe, Mr. Derek Thomas, a senior researcher with the department, confirms that people born in other countries and now living in Canada are under-represented in our prisons.

While 20.2 per cent of the Canadian population is comprised of newcomers, these same people only represent 11.9 per cent of prisoners or those on probation, that is half of that. Again,

unlike some popular clichés, visible minorities were not over-represented in criminal statistics.

Because of the many questions that are being asked by the public and the concerns that it is showing, it is worth reminding that the crime rate in this country has been reduced by 5 per cent in 1993. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: "For the second consecutive year, the crime rate reported by police services has dropped in 1993. The 5 per cent reduction has been the most important on a year-to-year basis since criminal statistics were first collected in 1962". These are the facts.

That confirms what I was saying earlier about reality and perceptions. While the public thinks that the overall crime rate has increased, that is not the reality. The same goes for the link that the public is trying to establish between immigration and crime. I do not intend in any way to trivialize criminal activities, because they really do exist in our society and everywhere in Canada.

I know that the public is concerned for its safety. Surveys are showing that. However, let us get things straight. This House has the duty to rely on facts and act accordingly. One also has to wonder about and to denounce the source of these errors and perceptions of the public. This House should not be a reflection of papers like Allô Police or media sensationalism which overexpose individual cases and give the impression that they are now the norm in Canada.

It is unbelievable that after trying to blame young people for every ill under the sun, we are now targeting immigrants. Should we not ask ourselves whether social and economic conditions have more to do with crime than immigration? The difficulties that immigrant families and young people in particular have to face-lack of money, lack of jobs, lack of training-have probably more to do with crime than immigration as such.

I now want to go back to the wording of Bill C-44 introduced by the government on June 17 of this year. Its object is to tighten the provisions of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act to reduce the legal recourse of immigrants and refugee claimants found guilty of crimes in Canada.

First, I would like to stress that government has indeed the right and the duty to protect its citizens against crime. In that sense the Official Opposition is not against trying to make sure that dangerous criminals do not prolong their stay or settle in Quebec or Canada. We support the underlying principles of Bill C-44, but we seriously question the nature of some of the proposed measures.

The first question we have is about the rationale for such a bill. Do we have specific reasons to seek to tighten the legislation because of criminal activity, especially among immigrants and refugees? How can we explain the increased opposition to criminal immigrants in the public opinion in English Canada? Could it be that a wave of disinformation has influenced English Canadians, giving rise to fear and almost xenophobic attitudes?

Mr. Speaker, beyond these apprehensions, there are specific provisions in Bill C-44 that we are concerned about. The most important of these provisions is the explicit intent to eliminate the right to appeal for immigrants and refugees charged with an offence punishable by a minimum ten-year jail sentence. This seems to be contrary to the fundamental principles a so-called "just" society should be based on. We all remember who promoted this concept. What we are demanding today is a society as just as when it first became a buzzword. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply to everyone when it comes to fair and equitable proceedings.

There is another element of this bill which causes us some concern; it has to do with sentencing. Bill C-44 only takes into account the maximum sentence for a given crime instead of the particular sentence handed down by the judge. Indeed, even though under the Criminal Code a particular crime is punishable by a ten-year jail sentence, the courts use the sentencing principles to determine the penalty.

For example, break and enter in a private home is punishable by life; offences such as being an accessory to counterfeiting credit cards could justify the deportation of the accused to his country of origin.

As you know, the sentences handed down are generally far less severe than the maximum permitted. In some cases, instead of a fine or a jail term, the sentence may even be suspended or the accused put on probation. As a consequence, an individual who receives a light sentence could still be forced to leave the country.

This provision could contravene the Geneva convention. The handbook of the High Commissioner for Refugees stipulates and I quote: "In evaluating the nature of the crime presumed to have been committed, all the relevant factors-including any mitigating circumstances-must be taken into account".

Bill C-44 should take these comments into consideration.

Another aspect not covered in Bill C-44 is the distinction between a political crime and a crime under common law. We find it disturbing that someone would be removed from Canada for, say, political reasons, without regard for the risks awaiting him in his country of origin. This sort of rule clearly lacks

flexibility and humanity. Should we not weigh the risks involved against the acts committed?

Other important questions come to mind. What will happen to permanent residents who have been living in Canada for several years? In some cases, they came to this country as children. Now adults, they work here, have families here and barely remember their country of origin. They no longer have friends or family there. This is the reality. These people are in fact Quebecers or Canadians. Is returning them to their country of origin a good solution, the right solution?

Other aspects of this bill also deserve our attention. The bill the minister has tabled proposes to grant immigration officers the authority to seize and open all parcels and documents suspected of being used for fraudulent purposes. Is this not contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I think it is. Under our legal system the accused is presumed innocent. This right must apply to everyone.

The provisions for the seizure of mail reverse the burden of proof. On what basis would a seizure be carried out and how would the nature of the parcels be determined? These questions are weighty ones.

The Bill also provides that certain decisions formerly taken by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, will henceforth be taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his officials. On the one hand, the minister is being given new authority to appeal decisions made by adjudicators, and on the other hand the board is being denied the right to review cases for humanitarian reasons. Is this a case of the administrative process being politicized? Is it an attack on the independence of the IRB? Would it not be better to try to improve the operation of the board? I think it would.

There are other aspects of this bill I could question. We will have the opportunity to discuss it further in the standing committee dealing with the issue. A study released by Citizenship and Immigration Canada this summer showed that the whereabouts of 1,888 foreign criminals slated for deportation remained unknown. Is there no way of locating these individuals and trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future without putting up yet more entry barriers, and thus risk finding ourselves in embarrassing situations like the ones described earlier?

Do missing foreign criminals constitute a specific problem? In other words, are there more of these criminals than Canadian or Quebec ones? How many Canadians and Quebecers is the police unsuccessfully trying to locate at present? Are their numbers substantially lower than those of immigrants who are sought by police?

To better inform and reassure the public, the elected government, this Liberal government, should release all the information relating to the issue of foreign criminals.

Immigrants and refugee claimants would not be subjected to this witch hunt then. I wish to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois is aware of the problem created by foreign criminals currently in Canada. We also know that criminal activity causes turmoil and fright in local communities.

We will support the government in its efforts to find a fair and lasting solution to this problem. We entirely agree with immigrants and refugee claimants not being allowed to use our immigration legislation or the reputation of Canada or Quebec to flee their country of origin, where they have committed serious crimes. We are in complete agreement with that.

However, we shall not let ourselves be distracted by unfounded remarks which, as we pointed out, may not reflect the reality. It seems that the Canadian government is presently taking a more radical stance to appeal to a certain constituency. Just think of the young offenders legislation passed this past session. Think also of the stronger and stronger reservations expressed by the Liberal caucus about gun control or concerning Motion M-157 put forward by the Liberal member for Scarborough-Rouge River to reduce immigration levels in times of economic recession.

While on the subject, I might add that Bill C-44 like many other government initiatives does not reflect the Quebec reality. Public opinion in Quebec reacts quite differently from our Canadian neighbours with respect to how crime and immigration should be tied together.

As pointed out quite rightly in the Globe and Mail , last week, the people of Quebec did not let a few sordid cases reported recently in Canada, and which we deplore, influence their attitude or behaviour toward immigration. Perhaps this is another characteristic of Quebec's distinctiveness, is it not? Immigrants are a fundamental addition to the Canadian and Quebec society and they contribute undeniably to its collective wealth. Legislation to deny the right of entry and asylum to criminals should not put us in an awkward position.

There are sometimes discrepancies between the goals set and the measures put forward to achieve them. Bill C-44 as tabled in second reading seems to be so afflicted. In light of the questions and comments raised by the members of this House, we express the wish that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration improve this legislation and, in so doing, restore the trust of the Canadian and Quebec public in their institutions.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker,I certainly thank the member for his presentation. I believe it lacks in some areas given the fact that, as the member must realize, the accord Quebec has with the federal government regarding immigration is substantially different from the rest of the country.

I do not know if he is aware of that. He might be to some degree. He mentioned in his presentation that the attitude in Quebec and that of Quebecers is different with reference to immigration than it is in the rest of Canada. Does the member realize that with the Quebec-Canada accord only 16 per cent of the total immigration flow is into the province of Quebec? That may be very inaccurate. From what I understand, substantial numbers leave from year to year. Therefore the figure could be closer to 8 per cent or 10 per cent of all immigration into the province of Quebec.

I believe that is a very realistic number going into one region of the country and I believe that the rest of the country should adopt a similar percentage.

Does the member realize that the attitude of Quebecers may be different because of the fewer problems relating to immigration due to lower immigration levels? Would the member agree with that?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his comments. As I said in my speech, there was a steady decline in Canada's crime rate in 1992-93.

I am aware that Quebec's immigration law is different from that in the rest of Canada but it is not so different. As I was saying, I think we must be careful. We, as members of Parliament, have a duty and a responsibility not to rely only on what is written in the newspapers, on some journalists' tendency to sensationalize this issue. The fact remains that there has been a 5 per cent reduction in the crime rate.

It is true that today, some journalists may be tempted to make more of a case than the facts warrant. When a vicious crime is committed in a small town or community, there may be a tendency to exaggerate because it is a highly emotional time. But I think that, as members of Parliament, we must stay above the fray. We must be compassionate but when we make decisions on behalf of all Canadian people, I think me must first look at the facts. As I was saying, the facts show a decline in the crime rate.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I wish to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion:

That notwithstanding any order of this House any recorded division to be taken on Motion M-150 on September 22, 1994 be deferred until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 1994.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly concerned about the immigration bill introduced by the government. I must say that in my riding of Québec-Est there is the case of a Mr. Chouaiby, who arrived in Canada from Morocco in 1988. In 1989, he committed a robbery during which he seriously injured a security guard and, in 1990, he strangled a 19-year old woman.

He was sentenced to prison where he spent three years. In 1993, he got out and was allowed to remain in Canada by the Immigration and Refugee Board. They accepted him. They allowed him to stay in Canada for another six years, seven years in fact, until the year 2000, on the grounds that he could be rehabilitated.

However, I found their decision totally unacceptable because the mother of the woman who was strangled met him on the street after he moved back to the same neighbourhood. She saw him again several times. What a shock it must have been to see her daughter's killer in her own neighbourhood. She had to move. The troubled mother then lost her job because of the severe psychological shock she experienced. She then had to move. She does not work any more and she is still afraid of running into this man again in her neighbourhood.

I approached the minister of immigration to find out whether it is possible to deport this young man who is still violent, who is even considered by psychologists and psychiatrists to be very violent. The Immigration Act as it now stands and even if it were amended by this bill-although we may be in favour of this bill in principle-contains many shortcomings. Here is one of them: the bill does not deal with such cases, which are quite common in Canada. I think there are about 150 similar cases in Canada.

We are unable to expel this young man from Canada, at least until the year 2000, unless he commits another murder or another serious crime. That is ridiculous. It is as though Canadian citizens and especially the victim's mother were taken hostage by a violent immigrant who may be about to commit another act of violence. It is totally absurd. Totally unacceptable. This person should have been deported the day after he got out of jail. That is an example of the appalling mismanagement at the Canadian department of immigration. In fact, this case could have been invoked as a reason to tighten this act.

Of course, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, totally agree with the principle of this bill but it contains huge holes, unfortunately.

The minister should review his bill and tighten it so that it can tackle the real problems. That is the comment I wanted to make.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Québec-Est for his remarks at this point. I think that cases like the one he just described for us occur frequently.

You know, the question of refugees is in federal jurisdiction. We in Quebec have always been open to foreigners. Now, of course, cases can arise, as I just said. Now, even though there are isolated cases, the law must still be applied. The law must be improved, but we must not make a case of it when an immigrant is accused. The law must be clear, but we must not make special cases. I think it is dangerous to make special cases. That is why we will support the bill on second reading; however, we will present amendments to improve it on third reading.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-44.

I think that the member for Québec-Est may be talking through his hat.

There has already been some healthy debate in this House and elsewhere on the important topics of immigration, the enforcement of immigration issues, and the removal of a small but dangerous criminal element that has managed to infiltrate our system.

I use the word dangerous advisedly here. It works two ways. Certainly a few of those serious criminals who have managed to slip through the screening net are dangerous to our fellow citizens, but they are also dangerous to the health of our entire refugee and immigration policy.

For years our policies have been the envy of the world. Our citizens have had justifiable pride in a system that has both helped our country grow and has served as a bright beacon of hope on the horizon of a world beset by suffering.

Lately there have been tales of abuse of the immigration and refugee process. It is not widespread but it is enough to cause concern and concern can be healthy. When we are concerned about abuse and crime it is natural that the entire system comes under scrutiny. I am sure it is healthy for any process to get a periodic re-evaluation.

The danger we face now is that the repeated tales of wrongdoing, stories in the newspapers about criminals using red tape or quirky regulations to avoid departure, television stories about senseless crime involving people who perhaps should have been deported long ago are taking their toll on human faith and on charity. We are beginning to doubt the validity of the entire system. We cannot allow this to happen. A criminal few should not shake our faith in a system that has been decent and good and an example to the world. That is why this legislation is so important. I would hope that the hon. member for Québec-Est might see that and might possibly see his way clear to supporting it.

Just the other day in one of the newspapers I saw a map of the world reproduced. The headline on the map was "Tracking the tide of human suffering". Almost every corner of the globe was covered, from the slaughterhouses of the Balkans to the killing fields of Africa with horror stopovers in between.

We are seeing borders erased, vast legions of humanity on the move and migrations of people on a scale never before witnessed in human history. Here we are in one of the safest, healthiest and wealthiest nations in the world letting doubts and uncertainty cloud policies that have helped make us healthy, wealthy and safe and that have brought new hope and relieved the suffering of millions. I might add those policies have allowed all of us, or nearly all of us who sit in this House to be here, either ourselves, our parents, our grandparents, whomever.

We have in our hands the ability to restore faith in a process that has helped shape our destiny as a nation. The amendments enclosed in these few pages will help us get rid of the hiding places for criminals. I am not talking about criminal hideouts, something you might find in the movies. I am talking about the loopholes and anomalies of the law.

Changes to these points of law coupled with other parts to the multi-pronged strategy to curtail abuse of our immigration laws as outlined by the minister earlier will do a great deal to restore faith in a system which needs some bolstering. Let me point to a few of those loopholes and anomalies as I see them.

This legislation eliminates the possibility of one person having a number of refugee claims at the same time. It allows us to take serious criminals out of the refugee process. It also means we will not have to go behind penitentiary walls for hearings for convicted murderers who claim to be refugees.

Until these amendments came forward there was nothing officials could do to stop the citizenship process when a person was subject to an immigration inquiry and of course we cannot deport a citizen. With these changes the citizenship process stops cold until any immigration proceedings are concluded.

There is nothing here that should cause any alarm for real refugees and most of the immigrants Canada has been receiving over the years. Critics who say these amendments hurt real refugees and upright immigrants should think again. They should think of the tremendous waste of time and energy tracking down scofflaws. No, these changes do not hurt the

innocent but they will bring an increased sense of justice and integrity to the immigration and refugee system.

The amendments take away a few legal hidey-holes that have camouflaged a small criminal minority and they put some integrity back in the system. It is actions like these which will take us a long way toward restoring some of the faith in the system, faith that may have been lost in recent months and years.

Before I close my remarks I would like to take a moment to deal with an issue which has caused some criticism of the legislation. That is the resolution to take the decision making to allow a serious criminal to stay in Canada for humanitarian or compassionate reasons away from the immigration appeal division and put it in the hands of the minister.

This is not a plot to rob the appeal division of power, it is simply making the system more accountable. The immigration appeal division may still review these cases on questions of law and fact. The way it stands now, the minister must deal with the consequences of allowing a serious criminal to stay in Canada, but the minister does not take part in the decision making that led to those consequences.

If this legislation is approved, the government does not project or predict that far fewer removal orders will be stopped. What we do say is that our goal will be to protect Canadians who might be a danger but to still recognize the fact that some serious criminals should be allowed to remain here on humanitarian grounds.

There is a chance with this legislation to restore some faith in the system. Let us be honest here, governments do not get too many chances. If we fail on this we may not get another chance. That is why we take it so seriously. That is why we have zero tolerance for this kind of behaviour.

Let us be very blunt about this. If Canadians turn their backs on our refugee and immigration policies, the world will be a much darker and bleaker place. None of us should be playing politics with an issue which, if we look at the world around us, is a life and death issue for far too many people.

I urge all members to move this legislation forward swiftly.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. What in this legislation addresses the concern of the member for Québec-Est, removing violent criminals who are not citizens of this country? What in the legislation deals with that problem?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is speaking for the member for Québec-Est, who I am sure will manage to speak for himself as well.

At any rate I would suggest that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast read the legislation. It is there in the bill. Perhaps if the hon. member is having some difficulty with the interpretation he could check with one of his female colleagues-I am sorry but I forget the hon. member's riding-who I know is a member of the bar. She or perhaps the justice critic might be able to help him.

However it definitely is in the legislation. I am sure if the hon. member for Calgary Northeast reads it quite carefully he will see what is there.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Colleagues, with great respect I think members should try to treat each other with a little bit more respect than was just given in that answer. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has any comment on that.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

No, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has no comment on that except to say she is mystified at your remarks. I do not understand. Perhaps you could explain. I am sorry.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Questions or comments, the hon. member for Bourassa.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She is a great expert and very competent in the field. She did outstanding work when she was in the opposition, but I admit that I do not follow what she was saying in her speech today. On the one hand, she talks a very humanitarian line, she always did, but on the other, how can she justify this Bill C-44 which I think is contrary to several principles of the Geneva convention?

For example, a political crime is not distinguished from a common law crime. How can she justify transferring much of the IRB's mandate to the department and the minister? For example, how can she justify no longer allowing permanent residents who have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years to appeal to the appeal division of the IRB?

She will expel these people because they committed a crime punishable by 10 or more years in penitentiary but in fact were fined, given a suspended sentence or put on probation. Why did the parliamentary secretary not admit, as the member of our party just said, that the crime rate has gone down in Canada in recent years and fell by 5 per cent in 1993?

Why does she not admit that the crime rate for immigrants is lower than the crime rate for Canadians who were born here and

that on the whole immigrants are more law abiding than Canadians born here? I do not follow her. I admit that she is very competent, she knows the field well and she has always taken a very humane position in this regard.