Debates of Oct. 4th, 2012

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a victim here. Many would argue that the government is attempting to label those 1.5 million permanent residents who call Canada their home. Many of these individuals have family members abroad. Quite often a child or a young adult leaves a country, whether it is the Philippines or India, and they arrive in Canada. One of the things this legislation is proposing to do is to deny people the opportunity to visit Canada if their spouse is not of good character. They themselves could be of great character and good health, with no risk of not returning, but they will be denied because their spouse in good health, even though they have a child here in Canada.

Does the member recognize this as something that is just not fair and in the best interests of public policy?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. It is a government that is really creating a crisis out of a very small number of people. We are willing to work with the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament is here for a reason, which is to make sure that, when legislation is put place, it responds to the needs of Canadians, to the needs of people.

In that respect, we need to make sure that we do not see ourselves before the courts, that we are not causing more havoc to laws in Canada that are quite problematic. This is about working together to fix a piece of legislation.

As we said, we believe this has a good intent, but at the same time there are some changes needed. What we have seen over and over again is very little flexibility on the side of the government to want to improve legislation, to ensure it is not to the detriment of people. That puts people in a really bad way and it is not a fair way.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I want to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who just spoke. I could feel how passionate she is about this issue.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton—North Delta who has played such an important role in the House on immigration and refugee issues. I thank her for her fine work on that.

The bill addresses the issue of people who come to Canada and commit crimes. The timing of the bill is interesting, because it comes on the heels of some very serious, difficult and controversial changes in immigration and refugee policy that have touched many members of my own community in Parkdale—High Park. I am speaking specifically about the refugee reform bill, Bill C-31, and also about cuts to refugee health care.

Part of my community is a place where many newcomers first come to Canada. We have seen waves of refugees come from different parts of the world. There are many religious institutions and places of worship that are amongst the oldest in the city of Toronto, because my riding is the first stopping off point for many newcomers to Canada. We have the oldest continuously functioning Jewish schul. We have one of the oldest Hindu temples. We have religious institutions of various denominations.

More recently we have many refugees coming from places such as Tibet and Hungary, as well as other places in Eastern Europe. Something that has been very controversial in our community, and we have joined health professionals in opposing, are the changes to deny some refugee claimants health care benefits.

I have seen, first-hand, people in my community who are directly affected by these changes. It has not been helpful that certain communities, such as the Roma community, have been demonized by the government. It creates a situation that is unhealthy for them here, even prior to the status of their refugee claim being assessed.

It is interesting that the Conservatives are now introducing a bill to get the immigration discussion back into a territory where they feel more comfortable, and that is the tough-on-crime approach. I see that in the political context of dealing with refugee and immigration issues.

The bill would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister in terms of discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. He can declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if in his or her opinion it is justified by public policy considerations. The bill also relieves the minister of the responsibility to consider humanitarian and compassionate situations such as taking into consideration the interests of a child. The minister no longer has to consider humanitarian concerns at all.

It also gives the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exemption to the family member of a foreign national that is “inadmissible” if the minister believes it is against the national interest, specifically examining national security or public safety.

There are also changes in the bill about what constitutes serious criminality. Previously a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two years or more constituted an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal. This would revoke that right with a conviction of six months or more, which has to be explored and investigated as to what kinds of crimes we are looking at and who would be most likely to be affected.

It would increase the penalties for misrepresentation, taking them from two years to five years for inadmissibility for permanent resident status. One thing that is very positive in the bill is that it would clarify that if someone enters Canada as part of an organized criminal activity, that on its own would not constitute inadmissibility, which may be important to people who are trafficked into Canada through some kind of criminal organization.

While I believe Canadians are legitimately concerned about the issue of non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, we have a concern about concentrating more arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of newcomers to Canada, and I have direct experience with many newcomers in my community, are law-abiding people who do not commit crimes. We believe the Conservatives ought to spend more time and effort ensuring these people are treated fairly and are reunited with their families as quickly as possible.

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. We cannot take someone such as Conrad Black and welcome him back to Canada with open arms and claim, as the minister did, that this was independent of politics and handled by bureaucrats, and then introduce a law like this which clearly would concentrate more discretionary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Suddenly he seems to have a conversion on the road to Damascus and wants to deport convicted criminals instead of welcoming them with open arms. That is quite a change. However, there are a number of other ways the minister could help, such as maybe no longer appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board and having a fairer process there.

While the issue of criminal activity and ensuring we are not getting the wrong people in Canada is important, we believe there are concerns that are not being taken into account. Mental health issues are a big area of concern. In my communities and in communities across the country, there are people who come here as refugees from war-torn countries. They do not get the kind of mental health support they need. We know there is a disproportionate representation of people who are mental health survivors in the prison system who desperately need help and would benefit greatly from help here in Canada, including many refugees whom deportation will not help.

Canadians would see people from war-torn countries being disproportionately rejected from Canada under the bill. Mental health is clearly a huge issue, as is the lack of ability to appeal. That is also left up to the discretion of the minister. The lack of appeal is something that has been criticized in other immigration initiatives by the government and is certainly something that I would question here.

While of course we support ensuring that Canadians are protected from criminals who would take advantage of our immigration and refugee system and come to this country and commit crimes, there are problems with the bill that need serious discussion, investigation and change in order to do the job that it is meant to do.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was talking about concerns with increasing ministerial discretion. It raises an interesting point. I am sure my friend is aware that in 2011 the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion asking the minister to stop two people from coming to Canada due to their comments encouraging hate and violence against women and homosexuals. Unfortunately, there was no ability for the minister to stop those people from coming into the country. The bill would address that issue.

Do the New Democrats agree or disagree with Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly? Do they think that people who promote hate and violence should be allowed into Canada? If they do not think they should be coming into Canada, why will they not stand and support the legislation to give the minister the power to do exactly that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not read the bill in question because it is not a bill that has been before the House. Obviously as champions of human rights who work constantly against racism and sexist behaviour, we support those goals.

What is a concern is concentrating discretionary power in the hands of the minister through the bill and casting a net so wide that it has unintended consequences.

Let me just give one more example quickly. Suppose someone comes to this country as an infant, the child of immigrants or refugees, grows up in this country, spends their life here and, as an adult, commits a crime. However, he or she has never taken up Canadian citizenship. It seems extreme that the person could potentially be sent back to a country where they have no connection, no family and no relationship because they have served a sentence of six months in a Canadian jail.

I would question the broad net of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, most people recognize that there is a difference in the types of crimes that are committed. This goes to the member's response to the last question, which was in regard to crimes that would ultimately lead to a conviction for which a person could serve a sentence of six months or more.

When we say a sentence of six months, we are not just talking about jail time. That could be part of a conditional sentence and so forth. It is just a summary conviction that ultimately leads to a minimum of six months.

We just passed legislation not that long ago that if a person is caught with six plants of marijuana, he or she would go to jail for six months. That would mean that if a person was here for many years, as the hon. member pointed out, 10 or 15 years plus, and even if they have a family, that person could actually be deported because they had six plants of marijuana. It is not rape or murder or something of that nature, but it is a violation of the law because the law says we cannot have six plants.

I wonder if the hon. member could provide comment on whether she sees that as justice being served in that situation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is in keeping with what I have been describing, which is that reducing the rule from two years to six months could capture far too many people in this wide net. It could include someone who might be a first-time offender, someone who has lived here all his or her life, or someone who has a mental illness.

It could be someone who just made a terrible mistake and who would benefit from rehabilitation and who would benefit from perhaps other opportunities and could then become a productive and positive member of Canada. However, one stupid mistake, and as my colleague has indicated, a crime of growing some marijuana plants, could land them in this situation.

It seems overly harsh and overly discretionary to have this kind of consequence for that crime.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43. It is legislation that deserves consideration but, like much that comes from the government, it has significant flaws.

When members on the other side talk about the bill and ask us whether we want criminals who should be deported to get deported, the answer to that rhetorical question is yes. No one is opposed to that. That is why we are actually supporting the bill in principle. Certain people who come to Canada, commit violent crimes, abuse the appeal process and who manage to stay here for many years ought to be deported.

Therefore, the answer to the rhetorical question of whether criminals who should be deported get deported, is absolutely yes. Is this the way to do it? Are the measures in the bill balanced, fair and reasonable and do they comply with the rule of law?

The government claims that Canada is a champion of the rule of law throughout the world. Is it reasonable for a rule of law to have such a broad category that says that anyone who may get a six month sentence for a first offence, after having been in the country for 15, 20 or 25 years and having been here since he or she was a child or an infant, should get deported to his or her so-called home? The home of someone who has been here since the age of 2 and is now 25 is Canada. The fact is that for the 1.5 million people who are here as permanent residents, who have been granted the right to live here as permanent residents and have the right to obtain citizenship once they apply, this is their home.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about a person being convicted of growing six marijuana plants. That person is treated as a serious criminal and is subject to deportation to the country of his or her birth without any right of appeal. I do not think that complies with the rule of law. In fact, a number of lawyers who have talked about this suggested that this would not pass with the courts and that it would face a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Some hon. member]

Bring it on.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Bring it on, someone says. The Conservatives want to keep the courts and lawyers busy challenging their legislation. One would think they would desire to have legislation that meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that does the job it is supposed to do.

A member from the opposite side raised another aspect of this a couple of times. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park has quite ably talked about the potential for arbitrary decisions and broad categories. There are broad categories in the bill but then the Conservatives mention specific examples and ask if we do no agree that this should happen.

The member for Brampton West said that his party wants to prohibit the entry of someone who promotes hatred and asks why do we not support a measure that would do exactly that. Well, it does not do exactly that. It says, in very broad language, that the minister would have the power to deny entry to anyone for 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

It might have the effect of allowing that particular thing to happen as part of this broad category, but if what the Conservatives want to do is prevent people coming to Canada on a temporary visit to promote hatred, then they should say that they are going to give the minister the power to prevent people from coming to Canada to promote hatred. If they want to do exactly that, they should do exactly that. Public policy is a very broad consideration. There is that famous legal case in England that said that making decisions in the courts based on public policy considerations was an unruly horse. In other words, one could not control what would be contained under that consideration.

Public policy considerations are so broad that they give the minister almost absolute discretion. That is where we think this bill goes overboard. It gives too much discretion and arbitrary power to the minister. We want something that is flexible and something that will work to ensure we do not allow people into Canada who commit serious crimes, who are unworthy of continuing in Canada and who we would never allow to become citizens if they applied.

We are talking about criminals who have been convicted of significant offences. If they applied for citizenship, which they are entitled to do as permanent residents at a certain point, would they be given citizenship? The answer to that question is no, they would not be granted citizenship. Do we want to find ways that will force people who should be deported to be deported? Yes. If the appeal process is so long, ungainly and unruly that people can abuse it, we need to fix the appeal process, shorten the time limits and find a solution to the root of the problem. As one of my colleagues said, we do not need a sledgehammer to swat a fly. If a less restrictive measure can be used, in other words, one that does not affect so many other cases that it should not affect, then that is what should be used.

We are talking about the unfortunate arbitrariness that applies when we use these broad categories. When we take away the requirement of the minister to take into account humanitarian considerations and international rights violations, that removes the possibility of allowing someone to enter this country. It takes away the requirement of the minister to at least take that into consideration and say that we do not have to worry about that. This is a significant problem.

The risk that we run here is that we may be deporting offenders who may have been sentenced to six months or a year in jail, who arrived in Canada with their parents at a very young age and who may know nothing of the country to which they will be deported. By doing that, we would be leaving at risk people whose only country to which they have an attachment is Canada and they may have been in Canada for many years.

I will quote some of the comments that were made by a group of lawyers in Toronto last week who are active in immigration law. They are very familiar with the broad range of cases. They say that we are talking about many people in the African, Caribbean, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, English, Irish and Scottish communities who have not acquired Canadian citizenship despite the fact that they have been here for a long time. They say that the removal of the appeal process for those who have been sentenced to more than six months would be a terrible burden when their cases ought to be considered.

First offenders who have been here for 15 or 20 years and are incarcerated learn things. They improve their lives. People can go to jail for six months for shoplifting if they do it often enough. Perhaps they are drug addicts and need rehabilitation. Those people would be treated as the dross of society and sent to some potential far corner of the world where God knows what will happen to them. This is the kind of thing we are opposed to. We support the bill in principle in terms of doing what it should do but want to see it substantially improved in committee.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position on this is not surprising as it has always been soft on crime and criminals and has ignored victims. However, I find it astounding that its members are now soft on foreign criminals also.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence are all in support of the bill. Does the member not support these organizations? Do the NDP not support organizations such as these?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the government and the members opposite are selective when it comes to organizations such as the ones the member mentioned because sometimes they support their legislation and sometimes they do not. When they do not support their legislation, such as the chiefs of police who did not support the Conservatives' destruction of the gun registry, the Conservatives' ignored them and treated them like dirt. They did not want them to come forward. They did not want to hear from them. They say that they did not know what they were talking about.

Let us leave those associations out of this and talk about the principles here. For the most part, this is not about foreign criminals who come to Canada to further their criminal activity. If that is what we are talking about, then the law should be able to deal with them. What the government has done here is that it has painted such broad categories that it is refusing to allow the rule of law, as we understand it, to apply to the people who have been in the country since they were two or three years old and whose lives and families are here. They may have made a mistake by committing a crime, for which they were sentenced to six months in jail, but they deserve the opportunity to be rehabilitated and not subjected to deportation to a country that is foreign to them and one that they have no knowledge of without having the opportunity to appeal. That is wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to average out the number of immigrants who have come to Canada over the last 10 to 15 years, we would find that there would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over 200,000 people who have come to Canada and who want to call Canada their home. I would suggest that we have in excess of 1.5 million people who are permanent residents in Canada and who want to make Canada their home.

Is it not fair to believe that a certain percentage will fall on the other side of the law? There is very strong argument that in extreme cases we want to expedite and get rid of individuals who commit violent crimes. I do not hear anyone necessarily defending that.

Acknowledging that with a population base of 1.5 million people there will be some who fall on the other side of the law, if we look at what the legislation would do in respect of those sentenced to six months or more, they would not be able to access the appeal mechanisms. I would like the member to provide specific comment in terms of justice being denied to those individuals. Again, that is with respect to minor types of crimes. He made reference to shoplifting but it could be other types of crimes that he might want to make reference to.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, if the language in the bill were clear, the principle would be that we want to ensure that criminals who should be deported get deported. On that I think we can all agree.

However, I am not sure that everyone in the House would agree that people who have spent 20 or 22 years of their 25 years in Canada and who, for mental health issues, have run afoul of addictions or may have been caught two, three or four times shoplifting and ended up with a sentence of six or nine months, should be sent back to Somalia or a country where they have never been to since they were two years old and with their family here. I do not think we would find a lot of agreement on the other side of the House for that. I think we would find some human compassion to say that it is a special case that deserves some consideration.

The problem is that the bill does not give that person any consideration, does not give the judge any discretion and there is no right of appeal. What is wrong with the bill is that it makes one category with respect to dangerous criminals too broad. If it is for dangerous criminals, then it should be made for dangerous criminals.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for his eloquent speech and say that I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

This bill, if passed as is, will lead to numerous legislative changes with the purpose of accelerating the deportation, to their country of origin, of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have committed a serious crime in Canada or abroad. The Conservatives say that the faster removal of foreign criminals would prevent some of them from abusing the Canadian legal system to try to delay their deportation and extend their stay in the country.

One of the main provisions of Bill C-43 would amend the legal definition of "serious criminality" in order to restrict access to the appeal process should an individual be found inadmissible by a judge. Currently, a permanent or temporary resident of Canada can appeal such a decision to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, unless the individual is sentenced to two years or longer.

Such a sentence generally leads to the automatic revocation of the permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal a determination of inadmissibility. If Bill C-43 is passed, this right would be revoked as soon as a sentence of imprisonment of six months or longer is imposed. Such a sentence will not necessarily be imposed in cases of excessively violent crimes, as some of my colleagues mentioned a little earlier. Such sentences will be given to people who repeatedly commit crimes that might be considered less serious. At that point, they receive a sentence that is more severe than the original one. These people are not necessarily violent criminals. They are people who could still be rehabilitated.

Bill C-43 also puts more powers in the hands of the minister by allowing him to render a decision on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. The minister is given very broad discretionary power in that case. He could now declare that a foreign national is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. There is no clear definition of "public policy considerations" here. The minister will define it, without further justification.

Furthermore, although Bill C-43 specifies that entering Canada through criminal activity does not automatically make a person inadmissible—which can be important for people who were victims of human trafficking networks—it will take away the minister's responsibility to consider the humanitarian circumstances related to the individual's case. As a result, the minister will no longer be required to consider particular circumstances, such as security considerations, human rights and international rights violations, or organized criminality, in order to determine whether or not a humanitarian exemption has to be granted to a claimant.

Bill C-43 has to do with an issue that is a central concern for Canadians: their safety.

Keeping the people of Canada safe is also a priority for the NDP. We recognize the need to have an efficient justice system in order to deport real criminals who are not Canadian citizens to their country of origin. We do not support allowing these dangerous criminals, who put the safety of Canadians at risk, to stay in the country. If circumstances require it, we want to make sure that those people can be quickly deported to their country of origin in order to protect Canadians' safety.

We in the NDP also believe that we can work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. That is why I will support this bill at second reading. We also believe that it is possible to protect our people and to avoid those abuses without trampling on the rights of individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

The NDP is opposed to the idea of refusing anyone access to a just and fair appeal process. We are also opposed to the idea of giving the minister the power to unilaterally prevent a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if justified by public policy considerations, without our being able to identify clearly what exactly those public policy considerations are.

At the moment, as they often do, the Conservatives are trying hard to focus the debate on the issue of criminality in order to try to hide from Canadians the fact that Bill C-43 would henceforth grant wide discretionary powers to the minister and could violate the rights of a large number of foreign nationals and permanent residents. It is much easier to accuse everyone who objects to this bill of being soft on crime, as we often hear, or of not caring about the welfare of victims. That is completely false, and we must be able to keep things in perspective if we are to do our work properly here in this House.

So, because of the precise problems I have listed, it seems to me essential that, in committee, we study each of the provisions of Bill C-43 in depth and consider the potential negative consequences of enforcing it in its present unamended form.

In committee, it will be possible to focus on the provisions of this bill that present the greatest problems and make the changes necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike are respected and protected.

Another problem with Bill C-43 that deserves to be studied in depth is the fact that the bill restricts judicial independence by preventing judges from considering both the nature of a crime committed by a resident, whether temporary or permanent, and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. So, with Bill C-43, judges would no longer be allowed to consider the fact that some refugees from war-ravaged countries may be suffering from a mental illness. As we know, unfortunately, people fleeing from countries in the grips of war all too often arrive in Canada bearing the severe physical and psychological consequences of the trauma they have gone through in their country of origin. Unfortunately, when those people do not receive treatment, they often end up committing crimes. Whether they are citizens or not, they need help and treatment. Given the resources they need, they can frequently be rehabilitated. That will not be true of all foreign criminals who are going to be caught, but it will be true of a number of them, especially if they are suffering from a mental illness as the result of the trauma they have gone through at home.

Furthermore, Michael Bossin, an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, has said that young offenders commit a crime that gets them into a system that gets them treatment, medication and a rehabilitation program. They have family support, they have community support, and they are in no way a threat to anyone anymore.

Unfortunately, the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may well affect a large number of permanent and temporary residents with mental health disorders, who could be helped with treatment.

As we can see, Bill C-43 eliminates a number of control mechanisms that currently exist in the legal system and that provide a certain amount of flexibility. However, the flexibility being discussed here is absolutely necessary when somebody is confronted with extraordinary circumstances, such as the right to appeal in the case of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of appeal on humanitarian grounds for those who are deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or of violating human or international rights. It is obvious that much remains to be done to ensure that Bill C-43 fully respects the fundamental rights of individuals who want to become citizens, whether they are admissible or not.

Rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a handful of foreign criminals, as the Conservatives have done many times over the last few weeks, they should make a greater effort to reunite families and recognize the skills held by new immigrants so that they can find a job that uses their experience and their talent. We all want to be more strict with non-citizens who commit serious crimes against Canadian citizens, but we must never forget the fundamental values on which our legal system is based, even when dealing with people who have broken the law.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of speeches today by members of that party criticizing the government for this piece of legislation. They repeatedly say that they support getting tough on crime, “but....” They say they support cracking down on foreign criminals, “but....” There is always a but. There is always a reason. They always have an excuse for not supporting legislation. At some point it becomes clear that their protestations actually show that they do not support cracking down on criminals, including foreign criminals and having them removed from the country more quickly.

Would the member and her party finally admit that they do not support cracking down on crime and do not support faster removal of foreign criminals?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have the impression we are speaking to an empty room here in the House.

I think my speech was very clear, and I said clearly that I was going to support this bill at second reading, because the NDP considers it very important to protect Canadians from criminals, whether they are foreign criminals or not, who endanger their safety.

However, being tough on criminals does not mean you have to be callous and cold-blooded. We have social values here in Canada that demand that we show compassion for others and that we give consideration to the extraordinary circumstances that may well affect the actions and choices that some people make, no matter how ill-advised they may be.

The NDP is going to try to amend this bill so that it includes all of the necessary nuances for a legal system that is effective, fair and prompt in deporting criminals who must leave Canada quickly. However, we must not start stigmatizing and criminalizing all newcomers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is very much an anti-immigrant bill.

We need to start using the term “anti-immigrant”, because we have seen other pieces of legislation brought forward by the government that do target the immigrant community in a negative way. Even in the verbiage the government uses, it is anti-immigrant.

The bottom line is that the 1.5 million permanent residents the bill targets are outstanding participants in Canadian society. We need to acknowledge that fact about the vast majority of them.

Statistically speaking, immigrants commit far fewer crimes on a percentage basis than Canadians on average. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that fact.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As has already been mentioned, it is very clear that this bill is totally anti-immigration. This government has brought forward a number of bills that, with no valid reason, attempt to stigmatize immigrants, unless the immigrants have enough money to keep our economy going, of course.

However, everyone else, including refugees and people who need help and who come here to try to build a new life for themselves and their children, will be directly affected by the bill the government has introduced.

The Conservative government pretty much tries to set up immigrants to fail, and this is what we need to change in the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her interest in this issue. I am in favour of referring this bill to committee so that we can review it.

This bill gives rise to a lot of discussion and questions. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced a tough-on-crime bill. They are saying that there is a crime problem in this country and that it has to be solved. Statistically, it is quite the opposite; there is less and less crime in this country.

What is the purpose of this bill? Instead of addressing the challenges facing immigrants in this country, this bill comes down hard on crime committed by immigrants. As an hon. member said earlier, the crime rate among immigrants is statistically lower than that among Canadian citizens. In addition, the crime rate is going down.

I will ask this question again: what public policy considerations justify this bill? We have to ask ourselves that question, because this is a very important aspect of the bill. Ministerial discretion has been created for the definition of public policy considerations. Under the bill, the minister can now declare, for a maximum period of 36 months, that a foreign national is inadmissible based on public policy considerations. But the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. The minister has total discretion. We do not understand why the minister should have more power, when a number of immigration tribunals are already hearing immigrants' cases and the reasons why they came to Canada. There are currently enough tribunals to allow immigrants to present their evidence and to justify their place in Canada. There is no need to create another bill that will make the burden of proof heavier on immigrants, when that is not the case for ordinary citizens. Once again, this bill does a poor job of defining the concept of public policy considerations.

Why give the minister so much discretionary power in so many bills? This does not concern just this bill on criminalization in immigration. Almost all the bills that the Conservatives have introduced in the past year broaden ministerial discretion, which decreases the possibility for people to be heard by the tribunals.

Historically, the purpose of democracy was to take discretionary powers away from kings and ministers and to define the powers they have. For the past year in the House, the exact opposite has been happening. This is not normal. A living, breathing democracy should clearly define the government's power. But here, the government is in the process of broadening it.

Bill C-38 creates ministerial discretion with respect to the assessment of environmental projects. From now on, the minister has the right to decide whether or not a project will have to undergo an environmental impact assessment. Previously, certain factors would be used to determine whether or not an assessment would be done, but now it is left up to the minister. With this bill, ministerial discretion is once again being broadened, which I think is unacceptable.

A debate in committee could be useful. That is why, even with the huge reservations I have about ministerial discretion, I will continue to support the bill at second reading.

I also want to point out some inherent problems with the bill, problems that I find really very serious. In the past, in accordance with the act, an immigrant who had been sentenced to two years or more would have his permanent resident status revoked immediately. That is how it still is today. The bill we are looking at proposes reducing that sentence to six months or more. Any permanent resident who is convicted and sentenced to six months or more would lose his or her permanent resident status.

My Conservative colleague pointed out a few minutes ago that we are talking about foreigners and asked why the opposition did not support cracking down on foreign criminals in this country. Right now we are talking about permanent residents; they are not foreign. They have been allowed to enter Canada. We know them. They work here and, for the most part, they are contributing members of society and yet the Conservatives are saying that if they make a mistake, no matter what it is, a six-month prison term will strip them of their citizenship and their permanent resident status. That is it; they will be deported. That is very harsh, extremely harsh. I would like to expand on this in committee. A debate on this would be worthwhile.

Several laws in Canada impose a jail term of six months or more. I can give examples of people I know who have not paid their parking tickets. If too many parking tickets accumulate, a person can be sentenced to six months or more. If someone fails to pay their parking tickets, does that really justify deporting them out of the country? I find that a little much, to be honest.

It is extremely important that this bill be the subject of testimony by expert witnesses. Unfortunately, the people who draft the Conservatives' bill tend to go too far, perhaps because this government has a majority. Sometimes they cannot help themselves. That tends to be the Conservative way. They often appear incapable of seeing the fact that their bills benefit only a very small percentage of Canadians—perhaps those who give more money to the Conservative Party. I do not know, but maybe that it is.

It is very important for these bills to reflect the Canadian reality. I want to point out once again that crime rates are going down in Canada. I know that a few years ago the Conservatives were saying that they wanted to crack down on crime because a lot of crimes are not reported to the police. I am not going to chase shadows here; I am going after real criminals. I want to find a happy medium between protecting Canadian citizenship and an immigrant's right to a fair and equitable process. There is a fundamental right in Canadian law: everyone has the right to be heard. The minister's authority continues to grow. His discretionary powers are looking more and more like the powers of a king. That runs counter to legal tradition in Canada and all Commonwealth countries. The right to be heard is a fundamental right that the government would violate with this bill. This bill must absolutely be sent to committee to be examined carefully.

I hope that all members of the House will be open enough to allow amendments to this bill. Expert testimony will help with this. Many parts of this bill must be broken down, clarified, and debated so that the bill can truly benefit the Canadian public. Ultimately, immigrants must feel that Canada is a welcoming country. Historically, we have always been very open to immigrants, and I hope that we will continue to be.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the member's speech. I guess I am disappointed by much of what I hear. I hear the NDP members say that they will vote for the bill to move it to committee, but everything about it is disliked.

Another thing that bothers and troubles me are some of the questions coming from the Liberals. The member Winnipeg North says that this is an anti-immigrant bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill deals with the criminal element. An example is Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam from Sri Lanka who was sentenced to 18 months in jail. His crimes included assault with a weapon, drug possession and drug trafficking. The removal order was in 2001, he went into an appeal process and seven years later he was finally removed.

We understand the importance of immigrants. We understand the great contribution to Canada. However, a very small percentage of individuals come here and commit fraud, such as an individual from Romania, or sexual assaults. They are in Canada and they should be on their best behaviour.

This bill gives us the opportunity to send those people back to their place of—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the member's interest in criminal matters. I hope he will present a lot of amendments to this bill, as well as all other crime bills the government brings forward. They can all benefit from more debate at second reading.

When bills go too far, we are here to ensure that bills address the real problems of our country, not the fabricated ones the Conservatives keep throwing at us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an anti-immigrant bill, and the government needs to wake up and recognize that fact.

The 1.5 million-plus permanent residents in Canada today deserve better. Quite frankly, if we take a look at the amount of crime that is committed in Canada, the average immigrant is far less likely to commit that crime than the average citizen of Canada, yet the government has prioritized labelling them, calling them “foreigners”.

We do not hear the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism going out and calling permanent residents “a bunch of foreigners”. However, he is prepared to label them in legislation, highlighting what is very much an anti-immigrant bill.

Would the member not agree that, as worded, this is an anti-immigrant bill?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing that the Conservatives actually believe in welcoming all immigrants to our country. They seem to have a lot of reserve for an awful lot of them.

In some sense, I totally agree with the member. I hope the member from Winnipeg will be as full of vim and vigour through question period.