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.