Madam Speaker, I, like several lawyers who participated in the committee hearings, believe that this bill violates certain provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of the Geneva Convention. I hope that, once it becomes law, it will be immediately challenged before the courts.
I am thinking in particular of the provision which allows for the seizure of international mail by immigration officials. This is a reversal of the burden of proof. The presumption of innocence is protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but not in this legislation. The mere fact of importing or exporting identification documents or papers is an offence. Consequently, a person must prove that he or she has not committed an offence, which is contrary to the basic rules of law.
The parliamentary secretary then tells us that this is an excellent bill. Why is it then that all the organizations and all her colleague lawyers, including the president of the Canadian council for refugees, David Matas, who is also a lawyer and a former Liberal Party candidate, told the committee that this was a bad piece of legislation and that it violated the Charter and the Geneva Convention for refugees?
Indeed, the Canadian bar association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian ethnocultural council, as well as highly respected members of the legal profession in Canada criticized this bill, from a legal standpoint. I agree with the comment made by the hon. member who spoke before me to the effect that the Liberal majority did not co-operate. The Liberal members did not read all the briefs and they did not listen to all the testimonies made before the committee. More importantly, they did not listen to the opposition.
We submitted amendments that have ben implemented in other countries. We said that it was necessary to protect those who are here, the permanent residents who have been in Canada for at least ten years. These people already belong to our society; they have very little in the way of emotional links with their country of origin; they no longer have any family left over there. Why not make an exception for the people who have been living in Canada for a long time, for 40 to 50 years, and who, for many reasons, have not become Canadian citizens? They still are permanent residents.
We also said that we have to protect the younger people who are living here, in Canada, with their parents but who are not Canadian citizens. They are the products of our society. If they commit an offence, they have to pay for it here. Why should we deport them? They no longer have any family over there, their family is here, and our society is responsible for their education.
So, why were the amendments put forward by the opposition, by the Bloc Quebecois, rejected? I refer to amendments designed to include in this bill provisions found in other jurisdictions like Australia, which is as open to immigrants as Canada. Even in a country like France, not recognized for its open immigration policy, the immigration act is more caring than this bill introduced by the minister.