Debates of Feb. 6th, 1995

Immigration Act

[An hon. member]

Yes, it is true.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Beyond the fears weighing on our minds, we have the following reservations about specific provisions of Bill C-44. The most important of these is the clearly expressed desire to eliminate the right to appeal allowed immigrants and refugees accused of crimes punishable by a prison term of ten years or more. This seems to run counter to the fundamental principles which should exist in a just society. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply for us all as regards a fair and impartial procedure.

Another element of the bill which concerns us is that of sentencing. The bill considers only the nominal act, that is, the maximum penalty for the type of crime committed, without regard for the sentence actually imposed. We all know that, even though a crime is punishable by a 10-year prison term, in practice, judges use principles of sentencing to set terms. For example, someone who breaks into a private residence can be given a life sentence. According to the bill, the accomplice of someone who issues fraudulent credit cards could be deported to his or her country of origin.

In general, defendants are given much lighter sentences than the maximum. In certain cases, the sentence does not even include a prison term or a fine, the defendant is only given a suspended sentence or is put on probation. Persons given only very light sentences could see themselves, under the bill before

us, forced to leave the country. This provision of the bill could constitute, in our opinion, a violation of the Geneva Convention. The manual of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees states that, depending on the nature of the crime presumed to have been committed, all of the pertinent factors, including extenuating circumstances, must be taken into consideration. In our opinion, bill C-44 should take these considerations into account.

Another aspect that is ignored in the bill is the distinction between political crimes and common law crimes. It seems imprudent to deport persons convicted for political reasons to their country of origin without taking into account the risks they will face there. This kind of regulation is clearly lacking in flexibility and humanity. Would it not be better to take a closer look at the anticipated risks as compared to the seriousness of the crimes committed?

Other important issues are of concern to me, and I ask myself what will happen to permanent residents who have been living in Canada for several years. In some cases, they arrived in this country when they were quite small. Today, they are adults, they work here, are part of the same family and have only vague memories of their country of origin. They have no more relatives and often no more friends over there. Since these people are now Quebecers and Canadians, is returning them to their country of origin the answer?

Other aspects of the bill also deserve closer scrutiny. The bill proposes to authorize immigration officers to seize and open any parcel or document if they suspect it may be used for fraudulent purposes. Is this not a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? One of the principles of our judiciary system is the presumption of innocence, but these provisions on seizing mail reverse the burden of proof. On what grounds will seizures be made and how can the criminal nature of the contents be identified? That is something to think about.

The bill also provides that certain decisions that were formerly made by the Immigration and Refugee Board will, from now on, be made by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and its officials. The minister and his officials are being given new powers to appeal decisions made by an adjudicator in the course of an inquiry, but on the other hand, the commission is being deprived of its power to review cases on humanitarian grounds. Does this mean the administrative process is being politicized? Is this an attack on the independence of the IRB? Would it not be better to improve the way the IRB operates?

I would also like to mention the findings of a study by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which were released last summer. According to the study, 1,888 foreign criminals who were to be deported were still at large. Is there a way to find these people and try and prevent others from doing the same thing in the future, without necessarily making it harder to enter the country and running the risk of creating situations that are just as embarrassing as the one I just described? Is the problem of foreign criminals at large specific? In other words, are there more foreigners at large than Canadians or Quebecers that were born here? How many Canadians and Quebecers are now wanted by the police? Do they represent a percentage of Canadians that is significantly smaller than the percentage of immigrants in the same situation? We think the government should provide all the facts on the subject in order to better inform the public and set the record straight on the number of foreign criminals at large. In that way we would stop the witch hunt for immigrants and refugee claimants.

I would like to say again that the Bloc Quebecois is aware of the problems associated with foreign criminals presently in Canada. We also know that crime causes turmoil and terror in our communities. We will support the government in its attempts to arrive at an enduring and fair solution to this problem. We agree wholeheartedly that immigrants and refugee claimants cannot use the legislation or reputation of Canada or Quebec to escape their country of origin if they have committed serious offences.

We will not be distracted by unfounded observations which, as we have emphasized, do not reflect reality. The Canadian government seems at this time to be toughening its stance in order to appeal to certain voters. Consider for instance the Young Offenders Act passed during the last session or the increasing hesitation of Liberal caucus members in respect of gun control, or even motion M-157, tabled by the Liberal member for Scarborough-Rouge River, which aims to restrict immigration during periods of recession.

And while we are on the subject, I would also like to point out that Bill C-44, like many other government initiatives, does not reflect the situation in Quebec. In fact, public opinion in Quebec differs greatly from that in the rest of Canada in regards to the link between crime and immigration. As the Globe and Mail reminded us last week, Quebecers did not let the few bad cases recently experienced in Canada-which we deplore-influence their attitude and behaviour. This may be another aspect of Quebec's distinctiveness.

Immigrants make a fundamental and undeniable contribution to Quebec and Canadian society's collective wealth. A law designed to prevent criminals from enjoying the right of admission to and asylum in Canada should not be misused. The goals set are not always consistent with the measures put forward to achieve them.

That, unfortunately, seems to be the problem with Bill C-44 as it now stands.

Unfortunately, the government caved in to public pressure from certain groups and ignored our recommendations.

The minister unjustifiably rejected our recommendations. Let us take only one example, as time is running out. Let us consider the minimum two-year limit that we propose as a guideline. The minister replied that this proposal was not credible because the duration of the sentence handed down varies according to geographical and other arbitrary factors. He would rather keep the theoretical ten-year limit, when the courts use well-established rules to determine sentencing. These rules take into account the mitigating circumstances surrounding the crime. The minister thinks he is better able to determine an individual's fate than the courts. Instead of relying on the court, he prefers to decide himself whether or not he should use his power for humanitarian reasons. That coming from the same person who said barely a year ago that there should be less political involvement in the immigration system. It is easy to see that he is already under some pressure. What will happen when he and his colleagues are continuously subjected to strong public pressure?

For all the reasons I mentioned in my speech, the opposition cannot support this bill.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on her excellent speech. Several of the problems that Bill C-44 touches on could be dealt with administratively. In this regard, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the malfunction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration through a number of examples.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain information from immigration officials for a number of reasons: there has been enormous personnel cuts in the department and there are more to come. This has caused a lot of motivation problems within the department.

In the Montreal area, for any information, you have to dial 496-1010. Everyone knows this number: the lawyers, anyone who works with immigrants and refugees. The mere mention of this telephone number can provoke an allergic reaction, because there are six stages involved and it takes several minutes to get a final answer. If you ask to speak to an official, you are told: "Sorry, the line is busy."

That is no good for us members of Parliament, as a large part of our work consists in resolving immigration problems. Last year, the department put out guidelines saying: "If you want information, send us a fax." But it received so many faxes that we never got an answer. Now, they are telling us: "Phone instead." But it is even worse than last year. It is incredibly difficult for government services users because they never get to talk to a department official. In some instances, they come from abroad and do not know the language spoken here, let alone how our telephone system works, a completely dehumanized system. You have a machine answering calls, instead of people. It is becoming increasingly difficult for us, members of Parliament, to fulfill our role as representatives of the public, particularly as regards immigration. When we write to the minister, it takes two to three months to receive an acknowledgement, and another month or two to get a substantive answer. Yet, these are not minor issues: sometimes, what is at stake is the life of refugees who want to bring to Canada family members who are abroad.

The minister should take action to solve these administrative problems within the Department of Immigration, because these problems will become more serious once Bill C-44 is passed. The decision-making process regarding immigration issues is becoming increasingly politicized. The minister and his senior officials will make the decisions.

We, members of Parliament, will constantly have to contact the minister. We will not get answers within reasonable delays and this will generate a lot of frustration for the users of that service. I ask the minister to take the necessary steps to correct the problem as quickly as possible.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment.

I listened with great interest to the excellent presentation made by the hon. member for Québec. I liked the way she described the public's perception of the crime rate in Canada.

I agree that for some time people have been saying, especially certain opposition members, and even members of the general public, that more and more young people are involved in crime. This is just not true. In fact, according to statistics compiled by the Solicitor General and other departments, there has been no increase in youth crime, contrary to public opinion. Indeed, according to a Maclean Hunter poll, nearly 60 per cent of Canadians thought, and this of course includes Quebecers, that crime was on the increase.

I would also like to say that with respect to immigration, there is a general consensus in this country on the importance of recognizing not only the work done by the department but also by new immigrants to this country. We must not forget that during the eighties, nearly 90,000 immigrants came to Canada each year. As you know, Canada is known as a host country that is generous and tolerant. In fact, more and more people in other countries are interested in becoming citizens of the country with the best reputation in the world.

We now receive nearly 300,000 immigrants annually. Our strength is immigration, attracting people from other countries to come here and settle and become full fledged Canadians and contribute to the economic prosperity of the country.

But to say that the process has become very politicized-I do not think that is part of our culture. I do not think that in this country, we necessarily make political decisions on who will or will not be allowed into the country. We have certain procedures, we have a well established public service and programs to promote immigration by investors. People cannot say Canada is not a host country, is not a country where you can have a good life. If we only admit 300,000 annually, I am convinced-

[An hon. member]

Two hundred thousand.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

It does not really matter, but I would like to know how many applications we get from all the Canadian consulates or embassies throughout the world.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment because this is not really a question. I agree with the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he says that crime has not increased; on the contrary, as I mentioned in my text, it decreased by 5 per cent in 1993, and we are very happy about that.

However, I would like to go back to the comment made by my colleague for Bourassa, who says that we should have been more efficient in this bill and provided corrective action of an administrative nature. It is inconceivable that all the services should have been concentrated in Végréville.

In my riding, people are demanding services. They have expectations. They complain about public services that are very impersonal and becoming more and more inhuman, especially for an immigrant or someone who wants to come to Canada. It seems to me that the relationship that should exist between the people from the host country and those who want to come here has been removed.

I think that this contact has been removed and I too would have liked to see some corrective action in the bill. I will not go back to all the clauses in the bill, but I believe that some of them are contrary to the principle of equity and fairness towards the immigrant population and permanent residents. I think that leaving in the bill the concept of discredit, that is that immigrants are more criminals than native born Quebecers and Canadians is to harm these cultural communities that have chosen to live in Canada.

My colleague for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said that Canada and Quebec are indeed societies that welcome immigrants and are in favour of immigration, but this bill, in my opinion, will contribute instead to an increase of racism towards these cultural communities. We read in the newspapers that a black or a Haitian has committed a crime, but when it comes to a Quebecer or a Canadian, they just say an individual. We should be extremely careful on this issue and I will not repeat my speech, but I think that many clauses in the bill are not flexible and compassionate enough, and I will conclude my remarks on that.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak once again in support of Bill C-44. I believe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration clearly highlighted the bill's intention and the changes proposed as a result of the amendments that were passed by the committee.

As I have said in the past, Bill C-44 will provide us with the tools to deal effectively with people who abuse the system. Moreover it is part of the government's strategy to introduce an immigration plan that is fair, sustainable and responds to the needs of Canadians.

The minister of immigration said last August: "A good immigration policy is one that ensures the balance between equity and tolerance on the one hand and law enforcement on the other hand". Unlike members of the opposition, we have listened and continue to listen to what Canadians and Quebecers want in their immigration policy.

The legislation is long overdue. The bill we are dealing with today is necessary if we are to restore integrity to a system that has been damaged by the infiltration of a small but destructive criminal element.

My experience has shown me that for the most part immigrants who come to Canada wish to become full members of Canadian society. Canada is a great and generous country as all of us in the Chamber agree. Our doors have always been open to people fleeing economic hardship, persecution, war, civil strife, and to people who seek a better future for their children and themselves.

Immigrants, people like my parents, became Canadian citizens and participated actively in all segments of our society. Canada's history is full of such stories. The Chamber is full of stories of immigrants who through hard work and perseverance have made the country what it is today: one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

Canadians will not tolerate those who take advantage of their generosity, violate their laws or try to use the immigration and refugee determination process for criminal purposes. They must know that the government will not tolerate abuse. With Bill C-44, the government has taken all necessary measures to prevent abuse and protect the Canadian public against criminals.

As the minister mentioned earlier, the amendments we are considering today respond to various criticisms that the bill was vague and open to misinterpretation.

Furthermore the amendments we are examining today will improve the enforcement package we have put forward. They are not draconian measures as the opposition would like us to believe. They are a fair, efficient and common sense approach to the problems criminals pose to our immigration system.

The opposition parties continue to be opposed to our legislation, yet both have admitted they agree in principle that changes have to be made. The Bloc Quebecois thinks we have gone too far with our proposal and the Reform Party thinks we have not gone far enough. I think we are on the right track.

We are here to represent all Canadians. We have listened to Canadians from across Canada and put forward what we feel is the best solution.

The main points of the legislation are as follows. First, serious criminals deemed to be a danger to the public will not be allowed to claim refugee status as a means to delay their removal from Canada. Appeals against removal orders by persons convicted of serious crimes will be decided by the minister or his designate and not by the immigration appeal division. Senior immigration officers will be allowed to terminate refugee hearings because of criminality. Further, the legislation will give immigration officers the authority to seize identity documents from international mail if it is clear they are meant to be used to circumvent immigration requirements.

The legislation will also ensure that persons with summary convictions whether obtained inside Canada or abroad will be inadmissible. Bill C-44 will allow us to stop the processing of citizenship when a person is under inquiry.

Concerns have been raised over the definition of a serious criminal. Some are concerned that rightful refugees will be turned away. This will not be the case. One of the amendments we are considering today clarifies the definition of criminality. This is the essence of much of what Bill C-44 says.

It is important to note the two conditions. To be ineligible for refugee status an individual must be convicted of a crime punishable by 10 years or more in prison and must be deemed a serious threat to public safety by the minister. Both those conditions have to be met. Those considered a danger to the public would lose their right of appeal to the IRB on humanitarian grounds, law and issues of fact. They would retain the right to seek judicial review in the federal court and humanitarian issues would be considered by the minister when he or she makes a decision.

Contrary to what a lot of opposition members said, this responds to a lot of the concerns brought forward by the various organizations that presented their briefs before the immigration committee, for instance the Canadian Bar Association and other groups. We listened, took note and made those changes in Bill C-44. This is a government that listens to Canadians and, as we have proven in various other areas of legislation, takes their concerns seriously when the time comes to bring forth legislation.

Unfortunately the two opposition parties continue to voice the concerns of only parts of Canada. It is easy to put forward the ideas of just one region of Canada. It is, however, much more difficult to find the middle ground that will try to satisfy all Canadians. I believe we have done that with Bill C-44.

The Reform Party continues to call for an inquiry into the practices of the Immigration and Refugee Board and most recently proposed a total ban of the board. We recognize that Canadians are tired of abuse and we have moved quickly to respond to these concerns. Bill C-44 addresses a number of concerns of the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow for flexibility, a respect of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and the need to prevent abuse of the refugee system.

The government recognizes changes have to be made in order to make the system work better. We are streamlining the system, making sure that other points such as enforcement are stronger.

Our government is committed to maintaining a truly effective immigration policy, preventing illegal immigration and ensuring effective border control. These new provisions are fair and reasonable. Furthermore, contrary to what was said on the other side of the House, they are consistent with the crime-related provisions of the Geneva convention on refugees. It is a matter of justice, of democracy.

The measures proposed in Bill C-44 are not excessive and do not ignore the needs of immigrants.

Madam Speaker, allow me to add that the immigrants themselves admit that the system is being abused. Those who took part in the public consultations and testified before the Minister of Immigration asked us to amend the legislation as it now stands. I reiterate that our goal is not to penalize immigrants but to eliminate existing cases of abuse in the system.

Bill C-44 is about crime. There are a small number of criminals who abuse Canada's good nature and compassion. We must protect the integrity of the system against these few, and I repeat these few.

Hon. members of the Bloc have said that we are tainting all immigrants by bringing forth this legislation. I do not believe that this is so. In fact, we are presenting the true picture of what immigrants have brought to this country. We are assuring that the few criminal elements that do exist in any system are dealt with quickly and efficiently and thereby, in my opinion, assuring that the good name of all immigrants is protected under the Canadian system.

Again, Bill C-44 will help us restore integrity and instill renewed confidence in the Canadian people.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, this member will recall that she sat in on a meeting with a group of Vietnamese people who expressed concerns about the undesirable elements among them. The gist of that meeting was that they indicated they wanted certain individuals removed from their midst.

I have the names of several of those individuals who have been causing problems in their community. Unfortunately half the Liberal members got up and walked out of the meeting when this group of Vietnamese concerned citizens wanted some deterrent and strong action on the part of the government.

An adjudicator just released several of these individuals into the community. Some have been charged with sexual assault with a weapon, B and E with a weapon. One was a gang member. Another one shot a kid in the face with a gun in Vancouver. One was just released from the Fraser Regional Institute. There is robbery, assault, trafficking in heroine and the list goes on and on. These individuals walk freely in the community. Why does Bill C-44 not deal with these very violent criminals?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to correct something the hon. member said. I remember sitting in on the meeting with the Vietnamese community and I did not walk out. Neither did the rest of the members but that is not the point of the hon. member's question.

As far as the cases that he has brought up, I am not personally aware of those cases. I do not know if they are real or fabricated. A lot of times the terms of what is brought forth by members of the opposition is sensationalization. That is exactly the type of thing that gives a bad name to all immigrants, including myself if I may say so since I am a child of immigrants to Canada.

What we have to keep in mind is that Bill C-44 is one way we can as a government effectively, efficiently and quickly take care of the criminal elements in our society.

Bill C-44 does address some of the problems that have been raised by the hon. member.

[An hon. member]

What about the other one?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

That was before Bill C-44. That is not after Bill C-44. We have not adopted it yet, have we?

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I often hear government members say that Canada is the best country in the world. I am not disputing it, I am simply urging more caution. There are 1,500,000 Canadians who are unemployed and four million living under the poverty line.

We are struggling with enormous problems. Unemployment is high in Montreal. In the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Denis alone, 20 per cent of the population is either on UI or on welfare.

Each year, 80,000 persons leave Canada. Why? When we travelled to Cyprus together-a very pleasant trip-many Canadian Cypriots told us they had returned to their country because of the problems we are having here. I think we should be more careful.

As for Bill C-44 not violating the Geneva Convention on refugees, the Canadian Council has testified that certain clauses are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Not one of the major organizations that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has heard supported this bill. Every organization and individual who testified before the committee criticized it, some going as far as asking for its withdrawal. The Canadian Bar Association, a most respectable organization, criticized the substance of the bill. When I asked the Canadian Ethnocultural Council if any cultural community organization in Canada supported this bill, the answer was "no".

So, I wonder if the hon. member for Saint-Denis could tell me why no organization supports Bill C-44.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that all of them have said that we had to get rid of the whole legislation.

I think a lot of them said they would like to see certain clarifications and certain amendments made to the legislation. We have listened to their concerns.

We have in fact brought forward some of those amendments. I stated one: In order to be ineligible for refugee status an individual would have to be convicted of a crime punishable by 10 years or more in prison. It must be deemed a serious threat to public safety. I think that was brought up because in Bill C-44 we did not stress that it was 10 years or more in prison.

We did listen to the representations of the various organizations and did take their concerns into account when we prepared the legislation. To say that they told us to do away with the legislation is not the truth. In fact, a lot of people felt there were valid reasons for bringing forth this legislation.

I do not want to repeat what I have already said in my speech. The minister has held public consultations across this land. He has listened to the Canadian people. The Canadian people have told him that they want to see criminals deported as quickly as possible. This legislation does respond to the general sentiment across this country, including Quebec, that criminals who commit crimes in Canada which are punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more will be dealt with quickly and will be deported to their country of origin.

I do not think that anyone who came before the committee can dispute that fact.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification from this member in reference to the search of mail coming through customs.

I ask the member what the government is going to do about the shortage of manpower in the area of customs in order to adequately search for the illegal documents. I am very much aware, as is the member, that there is a serious shortage of manpower to do this job. As the customs union representative pointed out the legislation would be moot. It would be of no value whatsoever.

What is your government going to do?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the minister has answered that question often enough. He has been asked that question numerous times by the hon. member.

I think what we have said is that we are going to work closely with the Minister of Justice and the minister of public security to ensure that there is seizure of the mail. That question has been answered numerous times.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of deficiencies in this bill, deficiencies that were drawn to the attention of the government by witnesses who came and spoke eloquently at the standing committee hearings. These deficiencies were not dealt with and I would like to just deal with those now at some length if I may.

In 1991 The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future released its final report on the state of our country. It was one of the most wide ranging and I might add, one of the most expensive committees in Canadian history. It spent over $23 million to get the pulse of the citizens of this country. However, it amounted to little more than a very expensive blood pressure check. Thanks to chairman Keith Spicer we were told what we knew all along: that people get angry when they are ignored by their governments.

The Reform Party grew out of this frustration and the fact that 52 of us now sit in the House of Commons is proof that this frustration is still alive and well.

Among its findings, the citizens' forum found Canadians have had enough of this partisan political system that the Liberals enforce and encourage with a passion. According to the report: "One of the strongest messages the forum received from participants was that they have lost their faith in both the political process and their political leaders. They do not feel that their governments, especially at the federal level, reflect the will of the people and they do not feel that citizens have the means at the moment to correct this".

It adds later: "They would like major decisions affecting them to be made in a responsible manner and in a manner that is responsive to both the expressed views and the general well-being of citizens".

Two years later the Liberals promised in their much touted red book to restore respect for government. They said that in the House of Commons a Liberal government would give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through the House of Commons committees.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I was looking forward to playing a constructive role in drafting legislation that reflected the needs and the aspirations of Canadians. It was my hope that a new spirit of co-operation would come from this government, a spirit I am always willing to help and encourage.

To me, Bill C-44 was to be a test of this Liberal commitment. Would the Liberals be willing to co-operate with the Reform Party of Canada in making Bill C-44 work? Would they be willing to listen to Canadians on the pros and cons of this bill? Would they be willing to make changes to the bill to account for its flaws and shortcomings? I am sad to say on all accounts they most emphatically were not.

From the very start of the hearings Reform MPs have been faced by Liberal members who have shown neither an interest in working with us in the manner the red book promised nor the respect their peers expect and deserve. After promising to take the high road in dealing with the opposition, the Liberals have suddenly taken a liking to slinging mud at anyone on the opposition benches.

The Reform Party members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Bloc Quebecois members I might add have tolerated constant interruptions when questioning witnesses, sarcastic comments in the middle of statements, an atmosphere of unfounded animosity and confrontation at levels never before seen in Canadian politics. I wonder, is this what this new style of government is all about?

I am more upset though with how undemocratic the entire committee process has become. In black and white, the Liberals promised to give the Commons committees more leeway as well as the power to be more than just lap-dogs of the ministers. Committees are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the House, ensuring that average Canadians are heard on important issues.

Over the past several months the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration heard from numerous witnesses who came at taxpayers' expense to share their concerns about Bill C-44 and to offer their suggestions about how it can be made more effective.

The standing committee heard from a wide range of groups and individuals: lawyers, refugee advocates, police officers, labour groups and international organizations. Not one of these groups had kind words for the government on this bill. Yet clearly the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadians and followed the beck and call of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

For the record, and to jog the memories of the Liberal members sitting opposite, let me state what some of these groups had to say on this piece of legislation.

Amnesty International believes:

Measures contained in Bill C-44 potentially violate rights guaranteed by the charter and in international treaties concerning refugees and the prevention of torture.

The Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, after outlining 14 series concerns, concluded: "Bill C-44 must be withdrawn".

The Canadian Bar Association is concerned that "the express goals of saving money and reducing delay are not likely to be advanced by the provisions of Bill C-44".

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Canada believed that Bill C-44 violated sections 30, 58 and 1(f)(b) of the Geneva convention.

The Canadian Labour Congress stated:

We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are numerous other warnings from groups all across the political spectrum. I wonder what my Liberal colleagues across the way remember of these concerns.

In summary, these and other groups accused the government of breaking sections 11, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution, war zones and disappearances.

The bill would not stand up five minutes against a charter challenge and would be condemned by the international community if passed. It is hard to believe that the government would refuse to deal with these serious concerns or even at least acknowledge that they exist.

On the issue of enforcement, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I had a rather heated discussion when he appeared before the standing committee. I asked him bluntly: "Can you enforce Bill C-44? Yes or no?" His response was: "Yes, we can". That was a strong pledge in my opinion, but fortunately for the minister he is not the one who will be enforcing the bill. What about the people who will be enforcing the bill? What did they have to say?

According to the Canada Employment and Immigration union, "Additional staff is needed to process applications and help integrate new entrants in a timely fashion". They do not have the staff needed to fulfil their current duties, let alone any new duties.

The customs union said:

What benefit can be derived by the amendments proposed by Bill C-44, if we currently do not have the resources or the capacity to enforce even the existing legislation?

Finally, Canadian Police Association President Neal Jessop said:

It reminds me of putting a band aid on the Hindenburg. The problems are not going to go away.

What else is there to say? Whom should I believe? The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a politician with little or no background in policing issues, who claims that Bill C-44 can be enforced? Or, shall I believe the people on the front lines who admit that they cannot enforce the laws now and that Bill C-44 will not make enforcement a more realistic possibility in the future? Whom should I believe?

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast, Bloc Quebecois members on the committee and I have pointed out each and every one of these flaws to the committee. We have brought them to the attention of the Liberals through questions, statements and finally a motion last December calling for an inquiry into these concerns.

Liberal members struck down the motion. When asked why, the Liberal member for Elgin-Norfolk responded: "We don't need to tell you".

The member for Bourassa cautioned the Liberals that they were being disrespectful of their fellow MPs. I was shocked at the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She responded: "If the shoe fits, wear it".

Is this the new form of government the Liberals promised? Is this how the Liberals listen to Canadians? Is this how our country is going to be governed for the next three years?

I say for the record that the committee hearings into Bill C-44 have been an absolute and total farce. They have wasted my time as a member of Parliament, time that could have been much better used perhaps in dealing with constituency concerns. They have wasted the time of witnesses who have travelled hundreds of miles in some cases to share their concerns with us, only to find they were shut out in the final analysis. Finally, they have wasted taxpayers' dollars on a series of consultations that the government obviously did not take seriously.

The Liberal government has not addressed the serious concerns over the legality and the enforceability of Bill C-44. In the process it has made a mockery of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The Canadian people want meaningful legislation. They want to deal firmly with criminals who take advantage of our country's goodwill. They do not want laws that will be struck down by the courts and ridiculed by the international community. Most important, they do not want laws that cannot be enforced.

Until these specific concerns are addressed by the government, until the Liberals prove they are willing to seriously listen to the Canadian people, until they deal with the unconstitutionality of the bill, and until they give our enforcement officers the resources they need to make the bill work, I and the rest of the Reform caucus intend to oppose Bill C-44.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to follow my colleague on the parliamentary committee, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, because I heard something in his speech that appears to be a departure from normal Reform policy.

As you are well aware, Madam Speaker, and as other members of the House who were here in the previous Parliament are aware, I have a very deep and abiding affection for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I feel it is one of the great gifts that the legacy of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau left to the people of Canada.

[An hon. member]

You can't say his name.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

The hon. member opposite might want to check parliamentary procedure. The Right Hon. Prime Minister Trudeau is no longer a member of the House. Ergo it is permissible to name him without breaking the rules of Parliament.

It was a pleasure to hear the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin cite with regard to Bill C-44 that it would not withstand a charter challenge and I forget whether he said for three seconds or three minutes. I would like to know specifically from the hon. member what that charter challenge would be. Under which section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would he put it and could he possibly outline an argument?

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was in discussion with a constituent of another constituency, not my own. The concern there was that following the policies of the right hon. member who has been mentioned we hardly live in a country any longer. "We are a large plot of geography", he said, "in which a lot of different people try to make a living without any common history, without any common destiny or without any means of coming together".

With regard to the member's question, if she would like to review the transcript of the committee meetings the information is all there.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is fairly rare that I am accused of being obscure in my comments. As a matter of fact most people tend to think that I can perhaps be outspoken at times. I will be as succinct and as quick as possible. I already talked with my colleague next to me from the province of Saskatchewan who is a member of the bar. I found that he had the same concerns as I do with regard to the comments of the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I repeat. The hon. member said in his speech that the bill would not survive a charter challenge. I cannot remember whether he said three seconds or three minutes but he did say it. I know my colleague in the Chamber from London, another member of the bar of Ontario, would agree with me that there are sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that can come in conflict with federal legislation.

If one is to make a statement that says a bill before the House would not survive a charter challenge, as we would say in the land of my birth, Nova Scotia, "put your money where your mouth is and tell us how it will not survive a charter challenge". What section does it offend? What is his argument that states it would leave us in a constitutional quandary?

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be glad to quote the sections of my speech once again for the hon. member's benefit. If the hon member has her pencil out, she can take notes.

I quote Amnesty International that said there were measures contained in the bill that potentially violate rights guaranteed in the charter.

I also quote the Canadian Labour Congress that says:

We believe C-44 in fact violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are other groups that accused the government of breaking sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as numerous international conventions dealing with refugee treatment, torture, execution and war zones.

I do not have to quote the sections because they have already been quoted by people who know more about the law than I do, and the hon. member too, I might add.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in third reading debate on Bill C-44.

I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin who spoke before me will probably stay for some of my speech. I was very interested to hear the comments of the hon. member. I am still waiting to hear which sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are violated, but I was particularly interested to hear him talk about the way people feel about politicians.

I was particularly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Medicine Hat who made a comment about politicians. I would really like to tell the member for Medicine Hat that like it or lump it the day he got elected he became a politician.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

A representative.