Mary Clancy

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I get into these waters again. The hon. member did bring up a specific case in his remarks. I am sorry but I did not hear the full details of the specific case.

It would not be wise, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree with me, to comment on the specifics of a case. I would be happy, as I frequently do for other members of the House, to look at the file the hon. member is talking about. If he would like to see me either in my office or in the lobby to deal with the specific case I would be happy to look at it. However I think it would be unwise to deal with specifics in the matter of general debate.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I reassure the hon. critic for the Bloc, the member for Bourassa, that we will not be deporting people who do not break the law.

We agree with him very strongly that the crime rate for immigrants and refugees in this country is indeed lower than the national average, absolutely and no question. He could look it up as I am sure he has.

I would like to correct a couple of things. It may have been a difficulty in the translation but with regard to the offences it is one indictable offence under the law and two summary conviction offences.

Perhaps I did not get the question on that. If the hon. member wants to rephrase it or ask me again, I will try to get it. It is fairly straightforward. If there is a problem there I would be happy to address it.

On the question of right of appeal, the right of appeal to the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board is still there on questions of law and questions of fact. There is now a humane and compassionate right of appeal to the minister. As I said in my speech, the reason for it is that the minister deals with the consequences. It is a question of accountability, as the member knows. We as elected members of Parliament are accountable to our electorate in four to five years.

In consequence, because the minister bears the responsibility in the House but the Immigration and Refugee Board is as it should be on questions of fact and law at arm's length from the minister, the minister now has a place to make decisions based on humane and compassionate grounds.

As I said in my speech as well, we do not expect the number of appeals granted to go up in leaps and bounds, but this is yet another safeguard of the humane and compassionate grounds rooted in political accountability.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

No, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has no comment on that except to say she is mystified at your remarks. I do not understand. Perhaps you could explain. I am sorry.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is speaking for the member for Québec-Est, who I am sure will manage to speak for himself as well.

At any rate I would suggest that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast read the legislation. It is there in the bill. Perhaps if the hon. member is having some difficulty with the interpretation he could check with one of his female colleagues-I am sorry but I forget the hon. member's riding-who I know is a member of the bar. She or perhaps the justice critic might be able to help him.

However it definitely is in the legislation. I am sure if the hon. member for Calgary Northeast reads it quite carefully he will see what is there.

[Immigration Act, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to take part in this debate on Bill C-44.

I think that the member for Québec-Est may be talking through his hat.

There has already been some healthy debate in this House and elsewhere on the important topics of immigration, the enforcement of immigration issues, and the removal of a small but dangerous criminal element that has managed to infiltrate our system.

I use the word dangerous advisedly here. It works two ways. Certainly a few of those serious criminals who have managed to slip through the screening net are dangerous to our fellow citizens, but they are also dangerous to the health of our entire refugee and immigration policy.

For years our policies have been the envy of the world. Our citizens have had justifiable pride in a system that has both helped our country grow and has served as a bright beacon of hope on the horizon of a world beset by suffering.

Lately there have been tales of abuse of the immigration and refugee process. It is not widespread but it is enough to cause concern and concern can be healthy. When we are concerned about abuse and crime it is natural that the entire system comes under scrutiny. I am sure it is healthy for any process to get a periodic re-evaluation.

The danger we face now is that the repeated tales of wrongdoing, stories in the newspapers about criminals using red tape or quirky regulations to avoid departure, television stories about senseless crime involving people who perhaps should have been deported long ago are taking their toll on human faith and on charity. We are beginning to doubt the validity of the entire system. We cannot allow this to happen. A criminal few should not shake our faith in a system that has been decent and good and an example to the world. That is why this legislation is so important. I would hope that the hon. member for Québec-Est might see that and might possibly see his way clear to supporting it.

Just the other day in one of the newspapers I saw a map of the world reproduced. The headline on the map was "Tracking the tide of human suffering". Almost every corner of the globe was covered, from the slaughterhouses of the Balkans to the killing fields of Africa with horror stopovers in between.

We are seeing borders erased, vast legions of humanity on the move and migrations of people on a scale never before witnessed in human history. Here we are in one of the safest, healthiest and wealthiest nations in the world letting doubts and uncertainty cloud policies that have helped make us healthy, wealthy and safe and that have brought new hope and relieved the suffering of millions. I might add those policies have allowed all of us, or nearly all of us who sit in this House to be here, either ourselves, our parents, our grandparents, whomever.

We have in our hands the ability to restore faith in a process that has helped shape our destiny as a nation. The amendments enclosed in these few pages will help us get rid of the hiding places for criminals. I am not talking about criminal hideouts, something you might find in the movies. I am talking about the loopholes and anomalies of the law.

Changes to these points of law coupled with other parts to the multi-pronged strategy to curtail abuse of our immigration laws as outlined by the minister earlier will do a great deal to restore faith in a system which needs some bolstering. Let me point to a few of those loopholes and anomalies as I see them.

This legislation eliminates the possibility of one person having a number of refugee claims at the same time. It allows us to take serious criminals out of the refugee process. It also means we will not have to go behind penitentiary walls for hearings for convicted murderers who claim to be refugees.

Until these amendments came forward there was nothing officials could do to stop the citizenship process when a person was subject to an immigration inquiry and of course we cannot deport a citizen. With these changes the citizenship process stops cold until any immigration proceedings are concluded.

There is nothing here that should cause any alarm for real refugees and most of the immigrants Canada has been receiving over the years. Critics who say these amendments hurt real refugees and upright immigrants should think again. They should think of the tremendous waste of time and energy tracking down scofflaws. No, these changes do not hurt the

innocent but they will bring an increased sense of justice and integrity to the immigration and refugee system.

The amendments take away a few legal hidey-holes that have camouflaged a small criminal minority and they put some integrity back in the system. It is actions like these which will take us a long way toward restoring some of the faith in the system, faith that may have been lost in recent months and years.

Before I close my remarks I would like to take a moment to deal with an issue which has caused some criticism of the legislation. That is the resolution to take the decision making to allow a serious criminal to stay in Canada for humanitarian or compassionate reasons away from the immigration appeal division and put it in the hands of the minister.

This is not a plot to rob the appeal division of power, it is simply making the system more accountable. The immigration appeal division may still review these cases on questions of law and fact. The way it stands now, the minister must deal with the consequences of allowing a serious criminal to stay in Canada, but the minister does not take part in the decision making that led to those consequences.

If this legislation is approved, the government does not project or predict that far fewer removal orders will be stopped. What we do say is that our goal will be to protect Canadians who might be a danger but to still recognize the fact that some serious criminals should be allowed to remain here on humanitarian grounds.

There is a chance with this legislation to restore some faith in the system. Let us be honest here, governments do not get too many chances. If we fail on this we may not get another chance. That is why we take it so seriously. That is why we have zero tolerance for this kind of behaviour.

Let us be very blunt about this. If Canadians turn their backs on our refugee and immigration policies, the world will be a much darker and bleaker place. None of us should be playing politics with an issue which, if we look at the world around us, is a life and death issue for far too many people.

I urge all members to move this legislation forward swiftly.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

No, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing a comment to the House to clarify a point. We are looking at two different things here. We are looking at apples and oranges, the apples being those people who applied for landed status as immigrants. In the particular case with regard to criminal convictions, if they are summary conviction offences there are those that are punishable by a minimum of six months. If they are indictable there are those that are punishable by five years. Mr. Speaker, you would probably know this better than I would, but I think five years is the low end of the scale for indictable offences.

The question with regard to those crimes punishable by 10 years relates only to those within the refugee stream. That is tied to a United Nations convention to which we are a signatory. I hope that helps. Indictable offences per se run the gamut. It is not a 10-year thing. It does not relate to landed immigrant status. It relates to the refugee process and it is part of the UN convention.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud very much the comments and responses of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I stand on a point of clarification. I believe there has been some misunderstanding on the benches opposite with regard to the question of indictable offences and summary conviction offences under the bill.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Shame.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-35.

First I want to thank all members of the House for their co-operation and goodwill in seeing the bill through. Although the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act is essentially a housekeeping measure, members from all parties have offered some very thoughtful and helpful comments.

The bill has a straightforward and clear purpose: to provide a standard legislative basis for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The department now exists by virtue of Order in Council. For all its brevity and clarity the bill is significant for several reasons.

One of the Prime Minister's first decisions-perhaps the hon. member for Beaver River would like to listen-on assuming office last fall was to create the new department. All members know why he gave it this priority.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke vigorously on the issue. Continuing to include immigration within a department of public security would send precisely the wrong message to Canadians and the international community.

The bill carries through on the principles of the red book where we called for a dynamic approach to immigration, balancing humanitarian considerations with our demographic and economic needs.

Under Bill C-35 the structure of the department will reflect that balanced approach. Joining citizenship with immigration has a compelling logic. It is a natural fit. To acquire citizenship is a significant step in integrating newcomers into Canadian society. It means making a personal commitment to Canada and understanding the requirements, privileges and responsibilities of becoming Canadians.

Citizenship completes the process begun by immigration. The department believes that citizenship and immigration spring from the same common values and aims. My hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth put it rather well in the House the other day. He said that immigration is the body of this country and citizenship is the soul. So the department makes good common sense in the way it brings together the operational policy and promotional aspects of both citizenship and immigration.

The new department was created from parts of three others. Forging a common sense of purpose is not something that can be done overnight merely by order in council. Nearly 20 years ago the distinguished novelist and physicist C. P. Snow said that Canada has the finest civil service in the world today. I suspect that most Canadians do not realize it but it is a fact recognized by civil servants everywhere in the world. I hope that hon. members agree with me when I say that we want to be able to say that again, and sooner rather than later.

With a legislative basis staff can concentrate on even more efficient delivery of services, knowing that their careers can progress on the same terms as in any other department. More important, as the minister said in the House on second reading, the legislation modernizes and streamlines the government to meet the needs of Canadians and gives us the tools we need to deal effectively with the myriad complex issues of citizenship and immigration.

By taking programs, resources and responsibilities from several different departments and consolidating them in one department we make the government more accountable and more open.

The department has a clear and logical continuum of responsibilities, stretching from the time someone applies to come to Canada to the time she or he takes on the obligations of being a citizen. These responsibilities include immigration applications, immigration levels and selection, federal-provincial relations on immigration, visa requirements, refugee matters, enforcement, settlement, citizenship applications and registration, and citizenship promotion.

Of course, citizenship does not end with swearing an oath and acquiring a document. In some ways it is only the beginning. That is why the new department will take a lead role in strengthening the values, identity and commitment required of all citizens, those who are born here and those who choose to come here. Citizenship, like immigration, is a two-way street.

This week marks the 125th anniversary of Canada's immigration service. Indeed, today is the day. This bill marks one more step forward in our country's evolving and progressive history of citizenship and immigration legislation. This legislation will establish the integrated and simplified framework we need to address the challenges and the tremendous opportunities offered by immigration and citizenship.

All members of Parliament recognize the need to overhaul our immigration policies and to consider the long term role of immigration and nation building. All of us recognize the need to improve the system. All of us know the importance of redefining and reinforcing our citizenship policies. All of us understand the profound effect that migration issues are having upon the world today.

This government has moved actively on these important matters and we will continue to move actively. We are doing so, I believe, with a real sense of co-operation from all sides of this House. As Canadians we need to think about immigration in a bigger way. We need to get a clearer sense of where we are going and what kind of country we are building for the future. We have to clean up the problems with our immigration system, to stop the small number of abusers who undermine the overwhelming majority of hard working and honest newcomers.

A Canadian author once said that the refugee is the every man and every woman of our time. We have to push even harder to ensure that the international community comes to grips with the problems confronting 20 million refugees every year, and especially the question of protecting women who are fleeing gender-based persecution.

The government has acted on this and it will continue to act and we do so with the co-operation of everyone in the House of Commons. With the legislation to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we will have the integrated and simplified structure that is essential for solving problems and taking advantage of the tremendous opportunities for immigration and citizenship.

This legislation establishes a modern, efficient and intelligent structure. With this structure we will be better equipped to introduce and carry through on fair and open policies to reunite families, offer safe haven for refugees, use immigration as a building block for economic growth and promote the concept and principles of citizenship.

The legislation is obviously not designed to lay out specific details of immigration and citizenship policies. What Bill C-35 does do is create a contemporary department that is best organized to carry out the policies we eventually agree on.

Madam Speaker, I began by saying that the legislation is short and straightforward and it is important.

I therefore urge members of the House of Commons to pass this bill without delay so that we can improve citizenship and immigration policies and thus contribute to our country's progress. This legislation is a step forward.

With this positive step forward Canada and all Canadians will benefit.