Mr. Speaker, here we are again back to debating a bill which there really need not be much debate on. Bill C-44 was a poor piece of legislation several months ago when we began debate and it remains a bad piece of legislation today.
When this bill was introduced we examined it carefully and came to the conclusion that it, not unlike the party and the minister who proposed it, was all talk and no action, big on words, short on effect.
Bill C-44 is snake oil. It is being marketed as a cure all, a fix to the national mess that we call immigration policy.
Last year people died because of poor enforcement of the immigration policy. People who did not deserve to be residents of Canada remained residents of Canada. People who should never have been allowed to enter this country were allowed to enter.
The Immigration and Refugee Board laughed in the collective face of Canadians and ignored the needs of thousands of suffering refugees around the world by jacking up inland acceptance rates, granting hearings to even the most outrageous claims, overturning the deportation orders of dangerous, violent repeat offenders and suckering taxpayers out of a billion dollars or more all in the name of their brand of compassion.
In response to these and many other outrages that were splashed across the front pages of papers across the country and which rightly angered Canadians who felt that our immigration system was out of control, the minister responded by saying: "No problem. Don't look at the planes that crash, most of them don't". He said we need to pay more attention to the planes that land, the success stories, and ignore the rest.
We and millions of Canadians did not ignore the planes that crashed. Every time one of the minister's metaphorical planes crashed, every time the Immigration and Refugee Board screwed up, every time the immigration enforcement fell down on the job and every time the court system was abused by queue jumpers it hurt Canadians, it hurt immigrants across the country and it hurt the tens of thousands of genuine refugees who are overseas and need our help but cannot get it because we have left it up to the Immigration and Refugee Board to award scarce places to those who manage to show up, get a legal aid attorney to plead their case and push the right politically correct buttons of the IRB.
Sometimes when the minister's metaphorical planes crash it costs Canadians outrageous amounts of money but sometimes it costs people their lives.
Suddenly things got a little too hot for the minister of immigration. He suddenly realized that he had to do something, anything, and he had to do it fast. He thought he needed to table something, needed to make it look as though he really made a change or had taken charge and was really cleaning up his act. He and his legislative assistants got together and hurriedly drafted Bill C-44.
Here it is, they told us, the panacea, the cure for the immigration problems. With C-44 they assured us they were getting tough and would not tolerate abuses in immigration. This would stop the tragedies that occurred last year and are just waiting, mark my words, to happen again.
Bill C-44 is an impressive looking document. It is pages and pages of thick legal text adding this to the Immigration Act. It strikes out some parts, redefines some things and reiterates others.
Bill C-44 is really a whole lot of nothing at all. Is it a cure all for immigration woes?-not even close. Does it tackle the serious problems of morale and under staffing in the immigration department, especially in the area of enforcement?-no, it does not. Does it take away the incentive or the means for lawyers and advocates to endlessly tie up the IRB and our courts with appeal after appeal?-no way.
Does it restore accountability to the immigration decision making process, a lack of accountability that has allowed the immigration minister to slither away from foul ups by saying: "What can I do, it is an independent board", or allowing the IRB to say it is accountable only to the courts?-not even close. Does it secure the front door, our ports of entry?-no.
Does it get to the root of virtually all the problems in immigration today, the problems of numbers, too many to be properly handled by the department under any circumstances with the degree of care and precision that would allow for careful and thorough screening of all applicants?-no, it does not.
Here is what C-44 does. It provides an easy out for the minister and the government who are utterly incapable of making real choices, exercising real leadership and taking action, who instead are always looking for the easy way out, the appearance of action, much ado about nothing, sound and fury signifying nothing. Bill C-44 is exactly that. It is a great deal of legislative sound and fury which signifies absolutely nothing to the average law-abiding Canadian who wants a sane immigration policy and to immigrants who just want to start a new life, obey the law and enjoy their new home.
The minister of immigration has often spoken of his lofty ideals for immigration. He has often presented to Canadians and this House his vision of what immigration should do for Canada and what Canada should do for immigrants.
The minister has tried to argue that high immigration levels, the IRB and other elements of Canada's immigration policy are good for Canada because they enhance Canada's economy. He said that immigrants put into the economy more than they take out. We do not argue that. He has argued that immigration is a Canadian legacy, that immigration built Canada, it continues to build Canada and should build Canada in the future. That is obvious. That is the Reform Party's position on these points, just as it is the Liberals' position, the Bloc's position and also the NDP's position. It is even the position of the previous government.
The minister of immigration is taking no high road when he talks about the history of immigration and the need for that continued tradition. However there is a huge difference in talking about the past, talking about broad universally shared ideals and putting those ideals and values into practice.
That is where this government and my party part company. We both agree that immigration is a vital part of the Canadian heritage. We both agree that immigrants are an asset to the economy.
It is time to get beyond the "we are for immigration but you are not" rhetoric. We are all for immigration. The Reform Party and the Liberal Party are for continued immigration. Frankly, we in the Reform Party think we speak for the Canadian people when we say that enough is enough of the name calling and mud slinging that surrounds the immigration debate. That is the sort of rhetoric the government likes to employ when discussing immigration.
As offensive as that sort of rhetoric is, the rhetoric contained in Bill C-44 is even more offensive. It is most offensive because it looks like legislation that could help. Only insiders, people who are intimately familiar with the workings of immigration in Canada, would know why this bill is of little value and why it is unnecessary.
As I said before, there is no disagreement over the value of immigration to Canada. The Reform Party says that Canada could do better when it comes to immigration policy. The Reform Party says that there are real solid immediate changes that could be made to Canada's immigration policy that would benefit not only Canadians but immigrants as well.
When the government thinks that the status quo, a status quo created by the former Conservative government, is the way to go with ultra high levels, levels that are more than twice as high as those in any other country on earth, astronomical levels in this day and age, levels that are simply too high for our immigration department to handle, is it any wonder that large numbers of
undesirables are slipping through? Is it any wonder that large numbers of deportable people are evading arrest, given these astronomical numbers?
One way we can make a huge dent immediately in stopping large numbers of undesirables from entering the country and one way we can reduce the incredible number of deportable immigrants is simply to bring the total number of immigrants down to a reasonable sustainable level.
This minister and this government-and I dare them to stand up and say differently-have not established quotas on the number of immigrants entering the country. They have not reduced the numbers. They are simply taking credit for a lower number of applicants in some categories. It is smoke and mirrors.
Bill C-44 is the same sort of smoke and mirrors, the same sort of cynical politics. Take credit for something that is not real seems to be the motto of this government and this immigration minister.
Bill C-44 is not real. It too is smoke and mirrors. It too is a shell game. It too is cynical politics. This minister has tried to fool the people of Canada into thinking that something is happening when nothing is happening.
Let us go through this piece of legislation to see what it purports to do, why it does not do what it purports to do and why all members of this Parliament, those who want to report to their constituents with good consciences, will vote against this bill.
As a side bar, I know that not all members have had a chance to read this bill. Reading all bills is simply not possible for a member of Parliament. That is why I urge members to listen carefully as I go through the major clauses of Bill C-44 so that they will know why voting for this bill serves neither the interests of their communities nor the country as a whole.
The first major thing this bill purports to do is to empower customs officers to seize identity documents that are fraudulent and sent through the mail. That is fantastic. I would love it if all fraudulent documents sent through the mail could be stopped and seized. Such a measure if implemented would take the heart out of the illegal immigrant industry and let me assure members that there is an industry out there.
The minister has included that clause to give the Canadian people the impression he intends to stop the flow of illegal documents, or at least curb it. What could be wrong with that? I will tell you. Mansel Legacy, the head of the Customs Excise Union, says that this measure is utterly unenforceable. He appeared before the standing committee.
Throughout the whole country there are only a handful of officers with the power and the job description to actually open and seize these documents. Further, law restricts officers from opening mail that is under 50 grams. Put a visa or an identity card in an envelope and weigh it and you will come up with the same thing I did. It weighs less than 50 grams. Even if someone were dumb enough to enclose a pound of fake passports in a single envelope there are only a handful of officers who would be able to seize them.
The minister wants to give the impression he is taking care of a serious problem in customs and immigration policy. In fact he is just introducing a clause that is a lot of talk but is utterly unenforceable. That is the first piece of evidence that this bill was introduced to do nothing more than pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians.
Another part of the bill that has been trumpeted by the minister as a serious get tough measure has been the limiting of immigration procedures for serious criminals. Bill C-44 promises to limit the appeals of serious criminals to the Immigration and Refugee Board. That is the board the minister so often defends which has developed a reputation for sending into the streets serious violent criminals and non-residents who have gone on to kill innocent Canadians. As he puts it, it is a great Canadian institution. I beg to differ.
On first sight it is a good move. That was certainly my first reaction until I heard from the various lawyers and others who appeared before us at the standing committee. I am no legal expert and obviously the minister is not either. It is important for both of us to turn to the advice of lawyers when a bill is discussed in the standing committee.
When the lawyers appeared before the standing committee they said that this bill would not stop criminal immigrants from making appeals, it would not even slow them down. Bill C-44 does not stop serious convicted criminals from making appeals; it only stops them from making one kind of appeal. Bill C-44 would stop the IRB from hearing appeals based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations only but it would still permit them to hear appeals on matters of fact and law.
The lawyers who handle immigration and refugee cases and have the knowledge and a vested interest here have told us that C-44 will do nothing more than make them change their paperwork a little. Instead of making an appeal on compassionate grounds, they will make an appeal on fact and law. The bottom line is that criminal immigrants stay in the country. They stay, we pay.
This measure, the second major part of the bill, will not work but it does sound good. It sounds good and it appeases the majority of Canadians who want tougher immigration laws without actually changing anything important. No vested interest will be offended. As such I have to give this government
credit for its savvy. I have to give it credit for being able to write a bill that sounds like so much while delivering so little. It is a bill that appeases the majority without offending the ever so important minority who have the ear of the minister.
The third major part of this bill would make someone inadmissible for a claim before the IRB if it is discovered they have been convicted of a major crime in or outside Canada. That is great. Superb, as a matter of fact. That is exactly what the Reform Party has been demanding all along. Let us look a little closer at what Bill C-44 would really do.
Experts appearing before the committee have told us that Bill C-44 would have the perverse effect for example of allowing people who are caught with illegal guns in the trunks of their cars to remain in Canada while those who write bad cheques will no longer be able to stay or to make that claim. If you ask me, neither of these people deserve to be heard before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Clearly this bill uses an arbitrary measure of criminality to determine who is bad and who is not.
There is something much more insidious about this section of the bill. For those who want to do their homework before voting on this bill, and I encourage all my hon. colleagues to do just that, this section of the bill is absolutely unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the minister through his representatives already has the power to stop refugee hearings for people who would constitute a danger to Canada.
I have a list of individuals or at least one individual here for whom the minister has already signed an order to remove him from the country. He has done so. He can intervene at any time. The minister would have an opportunity to intervene in any of those claims that would constitute a violation of the Immigration Act.
The minister already has the power and it has been legislated again into Bill C-44. The minister can already intervene and make ineligible for a refugee hearing people whose presence in Canada would constitute a danger to the public interest.
Bill C-44 is not necessary legally. It is only necessary politically. It is necessary because the minister of immigration does not have the political will. He does not have the guts to intervene personally to stop refugee hearings for people who do not deserve status in Canada.
He says that he cannot intervene. That is simply not true. The minister just does not want to intervene and that is a fact. He could have intervened on Mendoza or Inthavong. Rather than sticking his neck out and possibly offending the special interests, the minister is passing the buck to the IRB. Believe me, the IRB is the last group of people with whom we want to entrust the safety of Canadians. Bill C-44 is just a way for the minister to pass the buck.
As another side bar, compare Bill C-44 with the Reform Party's refugee determination proposals. In those proposals there is a recurring theme. That theme is that the minister should use the power already available to him under the Immigration Act to toughen up on refugee determination and stop dangerous and undeserving people from making claims. We have the guts to do it. I think the majority of government backbenchers would have the guts, but this minister does not. Think about that before raising your hand in favour of this bill.
The final major clause of Bill C-44 deals with people applying for citizenship who are convicted of serious crimes or who are guilty of serious crimes outside Canada. The bill would temporarily halt the processing of applications for citizenship for those who have been found to have criminal backgrounds. That ignores a very serious question, a question that we have posed to this minister again and again over the past year. When exactly are the backgrounds checked and how thoroughly? According to the minister all backgrounds are checked.
I do not need to tell you about the multiple and frequent cases of people who have been allowed into Canada. They have been given status and then because of tips or information on the side have been found to be serious criminals, even war criminals.
Our immigration department is simply not able to thoroughly and adequately check the backgrounds of the quarter of a million immigrants Canada accepts each year. It is just not possible given the numbers. In order to stop a citizenship application a background has to be discovered but we have neither the ability nor the manpower to do it. It will not work.
Even assuming the best case scenario in terms of Bill C-44 if it is implemented and is used effectively, what then? Many more deportation orders would be issued. Good news you say. Wrong. Perversely and as a direct result of the inaction of the current immigration minister and the previous immigration ministers, it is bad news. It is bad news because of the sheer number of deportation warrants that are currently on the books.
Estimates, and that is all the immigration department has been kind enough to give us, suggest that there are up to 40,000 deportation warrants outstanding and unaccountable.
We have heard that in the city of Toronto there could be as many as 25,000 people who have deportation orders against them. Are they being rounded up? No. Are those numbers being substantially reduced? No. Can they be substantially reduced? Not given the priorities of this minister. The priorities of this minister are keeping the levels at the highest ever for Canada and the world, stressing family class immigration over independent immigration, keeping our inland acceptance rate of self-proclaimed refugees up to 50 times higher than other refugee accepting nations at a cost of over a billion dollars per year to the Canadian taxpayer. These priorities have not allowed the
direction of attention and resources toward immigration enforcement.
I told the House there are up to 25,000 outstanding deportation warrants in Toronto. To round these people up and escort them out of the country is a group of only 30 people with few tools, virtually no self-protection equipment and morale that is lower than that of any other group of public servants I have ever come across.
Even if Bill C-44 adds a few more people to the deportation rolls, it will not mean more people actually leaving Canada. Even dangerous criminals will still be able to appeal their deportation orders endlessly in the courts and to the IRB, all at the taxpayers' expense and probably with some success.
Just a few weeks ago a suspected war criminal from Rwanda was apprehended in Montreal after having successfully made it through Canada's almost non-existent screening process. He was allowed permanent resident status in Canada. This is a person who is accused of playing an instrumental role in whipping up the racial hatred that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and of ethnic cleansing of a sort not seen since World War II. Has he been deported? No. Is he in a holding cell? No. Is he in prison? No. He is on the streets, released by an adjudicator on a $5,000 bond.
Had Bill C-44 already been passed would it have prevented this sort of outrage? No, it would not have. It does not address it at all.
Over the recess a foreign criminal by the name of Inthevong who had been convicted of assault, various minor crimes and playing a role in a murder, was scheduled for deportation. He was brought before one of the minister's appointees at the IRB and was set loose on Canadian streets.
Like most Canadians I take the stupidity of the Immigration and Refugee Board for granted. Adding insult to injury in this case is the fact that the minister for immigration, the representative of the people of Canada, had the power to intervene and chose not to do it. The minister openly said that he would not intervene in this case to reverse the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I find that inexcusable.
Could Bill C-44 have stopped Inthevong's release? No, but the minister could have. The problem is not a lack of legislation. The Immigration Act gives the minister of immigration a broad and unique range of powers already. However all the ministerial power in the world will not do any good when the minister does not have the guts to use it.