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

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-44, which is an amendment to clarify and codify changes to the Immigration Act.

The people of Canada will not tolerate the abuse of our generosity. Even a few abuses destroy the trust Canadians have in our immigration policies of fairness and tolerance. It also means that Canadians' acceptance of a progressive immigration policy is compromised.

Bill C-44 will further the government's commitment to control illegal immigration and control our borders. This bill also provides further evidence that we take our commitments of the trust of the Canadian people seriously.

There are four main areas where Bill C-44 will improve the Immigration Act.

This bill will assist our frontline people to intervene in situations where someone is using the system to his or her advantage. As an example, a person who can have more than one claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board means the system becomes clogged with overlapping, repetitive, frivolous claims. The IRB is spending too much time investigating the already investigated and assessing the already assessed. Under Bill C-44 the first claim will take precedence and all subsequent claims will be terminated.

This bill will help to keep serious criminals out of the refugee determination system. At any time in the refugee determination process if senior immigration officials discover a serious criminal offence either in Canada or abroad, they will be able to suspend and terminate the process before the Immigration and Refugee Board makes a final decision.

Claims for refugee status can be dismissed for a number of reasons. The amendments in Bill C-44 will prohibit people convicted of serious crimes from claiming refugee status.

Under the Geneva convention on refugees, criminality is a valid basis for refusing a refugee claim. Bill C-44 will encourage this, as well as provisions for the exclusion of war criminals. As well the IAD will no longer have the power to allow serious criminals to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The minister will assume the authority to decide humanitarian and compassionate exceptions. Of course the IAD will still have the jurisdiction to grant stays of removal for reasons of law or fact or a mix of law and fact as it does now.

Finally, immigration officers will have the authority to seize identity documents sent by international mail. There is a disturbing trend toward the distribution of genuine counterfeit visas, passports and identity documents as part of attempts to bring illegal immigrants to Canada.

To that end customs officers will have the authority to examine international packages for documents like passports, visas, health cards and other documentation. The suspect material will be referred to an immigration officer who will determine if these documents might furnish evidence relevant to attempts to get around the immigration policy.

There are other pertinent amendments contained in Bill C-44. These specifics can be found in the relevant documents you have before you, Mr. Speaker. However, the central theme of my remarks is to endorse the spirit of the changes proposed in Bill C-44. The people of Canada want to see laws applied with some consistency and fairness. Where persons have broken the law or have misinterpreted their claim as a refugee or are trying to manipulate the system and the spirit of the Immigration Act we want to have the ability to act in the best interest of Canada.

If that means throwing a person out then it means throwing that person out. If it means convicting them of fraud with jail time then it means a conviction for fraud and jail time. It also means that we are going to enforce the laws reasonably, fairly and equally. The system is going to be changed for the better with this bill.

I call on all hon. members of this House to act as Canadians want us to act, to apply the laws as Canadians want the laws applied and to continue the tradition of fair, progressive and enlightened immigration that Canadians have grown accustomed to. To that end I call on all hon. members of this House to support Bill C-44.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to the Customs Act.

Bill C-44 goes a long way to address the concerns of many people. It provides the necessary tools and authority to maintain the integrity of our immigration and refugee system. There are a number of key points to the bill which merit highlighting. I would like to highlight a few.

Immigration officials, for example, would be given expanded powers to seize suspicious documents for inspection. Enforcement officers would have the authority to prohibit the shipment of documents which could be used to circumvent the rules and regulations of the Canada Immigration Act. These papers are the documents used to establish false identities to enable persons to enter and travel to Canada illegally.

Last year during a five-month period over 120 packages containing one or more status or identity documents were found in major Canadian cities each week. These packages had to be returned to the mails because there was no authority to seize them.

Under the provisions of Bill C-44 serious criminals will be prevented from using the refugee process to delay their removal from Canada. It should be noted that this is not a violation of their human rights. The United Nations convention on the status of refugees recognizes that some individuals are not deserving of protection because they had committed serious criminal offences.

This bill would also transfer from the immigration appeals division to the minister of immigration the authority to disallow permanent residents convicted of serious crimes to remain in the country on humanitarian grounds.

As many hon. members in the House are aware the immigration appeals division has recently been involved in a number of controversial decisions that allowed certain people to stay in Canada in spite of the crimes they previously committed. This amendment will place this important and controversial duty squarely in the hands of the minister, which I believe makes the system more accountable to Parliament.

Nevertheless, the immigration appeals division will retain jurisdiction to stay removal orders on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for permanent residents convicted of minor offences.

There are a number of serious other provisions in Bill C-44 that I believe will have a positive impact on our immigration and refugee system. For example, a person who is found to have made multiple claims will not be able to pursue a claim of their choice once the series of claims has been discovered. Instead, the first claim will now take precedence and the Immigration and Refugee Board will be notified to terminate all subsequent claims.

Senior immigration officers would also have authority to make removal orders besides the powers they have now at ports of entry and inland. In addition, all permanent residents who are ordered removed will lose their permanent resident status.

Abuse of Canada's immigration system and the existence of criminal immigrants and refugees are real serious concerns to many people in my constituency of Nepean. During the summer months I held a forum in my riding to garner the views and ideas of my constituents regarding Canada's immigration policy.

Throughout the evening a number of topics with a wide range of opinions were examined. One of the underlying themes of the discussion was a tremendous concern about newcomers who undermine the integrity of our immigration and refugee system.

The people of Nepean recognize that crime in Canada is not a result of any particular ethnocultural group of immigrants or refugees. They do however clearly feel that we must take steps to prevent criminals from entering Canada, expel those who commit crimes while in the country and impose barriers to those who have been able to cheat the system, attempting to enter Canada under false pretences.

A copy of the full report on the thoughts of the participants at the Nepean forum has been filed with the minister of immigration.

I firmly believe that Bill C-44 will work to tighten up our enforcement system and help to restore not only the faith of my constituents but of all Canadians in the integrity of our immigration and refugee system.

I am confident that hon. members in this House will see the merits of Bill C-44 and join me in supporting this legislation. We owe it to the people of Canada, both native born and newcomers alike, to ensure that our country is a nation where peace, prosperity and safety prevail.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

And the division bell having rung:

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been asked by the government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until daily adjournment on Monday, at which time the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would find unanimous consent, notwithstanding any order of this House, to have the vote which you have now announced as being deferred to Monday at 3 p.m. deferred to Tuesday at 3 p.m. at the same time as the other vote previously announced earlier this day.

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent?

Immigration ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, today I address this bill before us on sentencing reform. These proposals fulfil a commitment made in the red book by the Liberal Party.

The hon. members opposite should take note that we are keeping our promise. The main goals of this bill are to ensure the rehabilitation of offenders to become law-abiding citizens, to separate offenders from society when necessary and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders by making restitution and acknowledging harm done.

To achieve these principles the bill sets out a number of fundamental principles to guide the courts. These principles are, first, to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. Second, the courts must consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Third, similar acts should receive similar sentences. Fourth, the principle of sentencing totality is upheld. Fifth, the offender should not be imprisoned if other options are appropriate. Sixth, all reasonable alternatives should be considered. I mention this especially because of the aboriginal offenders.

There are a few features of this legislation on which I would like to focus. The use of alternatives for aboriginal offenders is a very important principle of this bill. In my province of Saskatchewan the aboriginal population is the fastest growing segment of society today. It also represents a disproportionate percentage of offenders incarcerated.

The courts in Saskatchewan have started to experiment with sentencing circles. A sentencing circle brings together elders of the community and also includes members of the non-native community and professionals such as lawyers and police officers.

The emphasis is not on retribution but rather on returning the community to its sense of harmony as defined by the aboriginal population.

Recently in Saskatoon an accused, a Saskatoon Metis, was sentenced in this manner. The sentencing circle was convened after this individual had robbed a gasoline station in my city. The sentencing circle met and decided that this individual must perform certain punishments to return its community harmony. He was instructed to do voluntary work for the gas station he had robbed, a certain number of hours of work or days, to volunteer at the Metis society and to admit his guilt to the community. Over and above this he was also sentenced to a penitentiary term of imprisonment.

The gas station owner was hesitant at first but has publicly said that he believes that justice has been served by the sentencing circle. This is an important part of criminal justice, the belief by members of the public at large that justice has been served, has been fulfilled.

We must resist the urge to incarcerate everyone who commits a crime. It costs more money to keep someone in jail for a year than it does to send a student to school.

Another important function of the bill is to provide for victims' impact statements at early parole hearings held under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Section 745 is the section that allows for review of the mandatory life sentence without parole for 25 years to determine whether the person should be paroled after 15 years.

I have strong feelings on this issue. Constable Brian King, a constable in the RCMP, was killed in Saskatoon. Constable King was a personal friend of mine. He was ruthlessly killed in the line of duty in 1978. Last year the individual convicted of killing him made an application for early parole under section 745.

Imagine for a moment the frustration and sense of helplessness of his family as they were forced to sit in a courtroom in Saskatoon and hear witness after witness give evidence but were not allowed to say a word themselves to the court. They were not allowed to bring the victim's voice to confront the person who had done the wrong.

Death, thanks to the current provisions, has not only silenced Brian King, but it has also silenced the memories of his family in the courtrooms of the land. Is this justice?

Finally, I would like to say a few words in support of the restitution provisions of the bill. When a criminal is sent to jail, does the store owner he robbed feel better? Maybe he does. Does the sentence imposed upon the criminal help the store owner make ends meet at the end of the month? Restitution provides the opportunity to make criminals pay for their crimes.

The legislation makes allowances for restitution for people who unwittingly buy stolen property. Currently if one buys stolen property and it is confiscated by the police, one loses what one has paid for it. Now restitution can be ordered by the courts and innocent victims of crime will be compensated.

This bill shows that the Liberal government is committed to showing criminals that crime does not pay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I have one question that I would like to ask. It is whether or not he would favour extending the right of individual groups to sentence people in their own group to groups beyond the aboriginals?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, the contributions of the aboriginal community in the area of sentencing and sentencing circles to the rest of society can be very important. We should be looking to many of the provisions that the aboriginal community has, one of them being sentencing circles.

That method of sentencing may be far more beneficial than many of the provisions that we presently incorporate into our criminal justice system. My answer is yes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, this past week I attended a conference in Hamilton sponsored by Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination otherwise known as CAVEAT.

There were 185 delegates present, Canadians from all across Canada representing all walks of life including victims, police, educators, law societies, politicians, members from the other side of the House. Numerous others were present at this conference.

At the conclusion of the conference many recommendations will be forwarded to the government, recommendations that I fully support-that must frighten some of them on the other side of the House-and believe would create an atmosphere that would make Canada a safe place for its citizens.

In comparison, I look at the various proposals put forward by the government from the justice department, proposals like Bill C-41, Bill C-42, Bill C-44, Bill C-45, Bill C-37. While they are all small steps, and I emphasize small, in the right direction, all of them are a far cry from what Canadians are calling for and what these recommendations are going to represent.

In my final analysis, I believe these proposals, including Bill C-41, will not produce the means to reduce violent crimes in this country to any significant degree. I listened to speeches from members of the Liberal caucus who say these bills are nothing more than a small step in the right direction. I am also aware of petitions put forward in the House calling for serious amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, amendments to the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act, petitions I might add with over two million signatures from all across Canada.

The only result that all the proposals for change that this government is producing will be an attempt to convince people all across the country that another promise by the red ink book has been fulfilled when in fact these proposals will do little or nothing to improve the safety of Canadians regarding violent crimes.

Now is the time and the opportunity for the government to bring forward legislation that announces zero tolerance for all acts of violence, and this is a far cry from that. What is wrong with zero tolerance? Why do we want to continue to live in a country where we have to be afraid for our children and grandchildren? What is the point? Let us continue to work hard in the area of prevention, but for heaven's sake draw the line in the sand and let all violent offenders know immediately that crossing that line will result in harsh meaningful punishment that they would regret.

The Minister of Justice is anxious to introduce new gun laws to make Canada safer. Why has one of these bills not been legislation that deems the use of a weapon in any crime will result in immediate incarceration to be served consecutively with any other sentence to a crime? Is the justice minister saving the gun issue to bring in legislation that will create a burden on law-abiding people? That is exactly what it will do when you start presenting legislation like I have seen. The criminal element will look at this legislation, they will laugh, make a joke and enjoy life.

What is wrong with legislation that says life means life and repealing such sections as 745 of the Criminal Code? Remember the victims. You seem to forget the word victims. Remember that victims of all violent crimes are affected for life by these crimes so why should punishment for the criminals be any less?

I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that we need to reduce the population in our prisons. There are better ways to deal with some non-violent offenders. But to suggest that violent offenders should be considered for release from a life sentence in 15 years is totally ridiculous. I shudder to think that Clifford Olson and his type may be on the street again some day.

That is why we have to ensure that sentencing guidelines are clear and consistent with the feeling of Canadians as represented by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states in section 15 that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Bill C-41, clause 718.2, subclause (1) states that: "When a court imposes a sentence it shall take into consideration the following: That the evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability" and

now they want to include sexual orientation "of the victim shall be taken into consideration".

I cannot understand what is the difference between murdering a white man, a black man, a heterosexual or a homosexual. Violence is violence. Why do we want to make it tougher because they happen to believe something different than the rest? There is no way in the world that inclusion of sexual orientation, for example, in this legislation should make one iota of difference as to how severely the criminal should be treated.

I personally believe that this clause conflicts with section 15 of the charter. There is no reason to say that a sentence should be tougher because of violence or hate. Violence is violence and hate is hate. There should be no exclusion when it comes to sentencing. The whole point of sentencing is protection of the victim and punishment for criminals based on severity of the crime.

In summary I would like to say this. This country is alarmed, people are alarmed. If we think that 2.5 million signatures to this government can be ignored then we had better think again. I can promise that from what I have seen from the recommendations of those petitioners, that is exactly what this government has done. It has ignored their recommendations. The government better open its eyes, read them when they are received and adhere to them or one day we will truly regret it.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, there has been reference made to the question of mandatory sentences when the firearms are used in the commission of an offence.

A close review of the provisions of the Criminal Code will show that that is already the case. There is a mandatory jail sentence for the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence. The minimum sentence is one year. The problem that arises is not one of legislation. It is enforcement of the code by the provincial attorneys general.

Further, there was reference made to zero tolerance. Zero tolerance of what? Police officers now lay charges when a person commits an offence. I would like to know from the hon. member what he means by zero tolerance in charging.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, apparently we are running into the same problem we always run into with these people. When your head is in the sand and your eyes and your ears are buried you do not hear or see what is going on. When you get a petition with 2.5 million names and you cannot hear the message, you should get your head out of the sand.

I do not have to defend zero tolerance. Canadians will do that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, as you have seen, I have just come into the Chair. I noticed that when the hon. member was saying "you" that he was looking sort of in my direction. I presume the remarks were for the Chair and I take them as such.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.