Annick Papillon

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I have questions about this bill. Security seems to be an important focus of the Conservatives' agenda but, when we look at where their priorities lie, we see that that is not true, at least not in Stanstead, which unfortunately is known as a sieve. It is not very pleasant. The fact that we are unable to post a sufficient number of staff at the border crossing at Stanstead prevents us from maintaining good relations with the United States. This is a very simple measure, but it seems that when it comes to taking real action that does not require very much effort—just a specific measure that produces results—the government introduces a bill that focuses on terrorism when that is clearly not the priority.

This morning, I would prefer it if the government talked about Stanstead and said that it would react by adding staff at that location. Instead, it is making cuts across the country, and we have seen the harm that this has done. What is more, from what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, we do not get the impression that the cuts are being made in a serious and effective way.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Indeed, everyone is for virtue. Everyone is for sharing the same values. And that is the problem. This Conservative government resorts to clichés far too often. It exploits that, which does not make sense. That is exactly the problem with this bill.

The Conservatives' arguments are often crazy. I would just like to say that the NDP is not in favour of criminals. It is not in favour of pedophiles. You would have to be completely nuts to think that. I will never accept that.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, who still dared give me a compliment. If he did compliment me, it was because I made an effort here in this House to qualify what I say. I do not want to resort to clichés.

I had an absolutely wonderful conversation with a taxi driver, and that conversation gave him a lot to think about. When we open the morning newspaper, we sometimes read about an awful case, a really dreadful story or tragedy. It might be about any kind of crime. At some point, the crime is no longer about any particular race, gender or age. It is quite simply a despicable crime.

I said in my speech that this bill will not change things dramatically, because there are not many cases where it will apply. So this is a bill that, unfortunately, all too often is about prejudice. But I do not want us to fall prey to such prejudice. I really want to plug the gaps where they are. I do not want to use a bazooka to kill a fly. It is ridiculous, to be honest. At that point, we would destroy everything just to make sure we protect ourselves and ensure that the safety of Canadians is not at stake.

It is important to qualify one's statements. I think that the people who can do this—

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what else is there to say after the hon. member for Gatineau summed up the issue so well? I will say that it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in today's debate.

First, I want to stress that, yes, we do share the government's concern over serious crimes committed by individuals who are not Canadian citizens. However, we think it is just as normal to share some real concerns about Bill C-43.

This bill will prevent permanent residents and illegal immigrants who are sentenced to a jail term of six months or more in Canada from appealing their deportation order. The individuals convicted would then be sent back to their country 12 to 15 months sooner than if they could have pleaded their case before the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, only immigrants sentenced to more than two years in a penitentiary are deprived of that right. According to the Department of Immigration, over 2,400 convicted individuals are currently appealing to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The new rule would eliminate half of those cases.

The bill includes other changes to the act. For example, those who are inadmissible for serious reasons will no longer be allowed to apply to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, the Minister of Immigration would be given a new power. That is indeed the case. Another power is given to the minister. Obviously, he must have felt that all the powers given to him under Bill C-31 were not enough.

And now this government goes so far as to deny permanent resident status to an individual, for reasons of public interest. We can be sure that the courts will have their hands full, even though that is already the case.

Finally, under Bill C-43, a foreign national would also be denied entry to Canada if a member of his family is denied entry for reasons related to security, organized crime or war crimes, even if the individual who committed the crime does not accompany that person.

The immigration minister said that his Bill C-43 seeks to restructure the deportation of convicted criminals by restricting their access to the appeal process. The minister indicated that, currently, many immigrants who have been convicted of crimes can avoid deportation because they were sentenced to a prison sentence of less than two years. The term “many” should be put in perspective because, according to Statistics Canada, in 2010-11, 86% of all prison sentences were of six months or less. We want facts because facts show the real picture.

As I already mentioned, this bill seems to follow the Conservative government's alarming pattern of giving greater discretion to ministers in matters of immigration and public safety. The high degree of discretion that Bill C-43 grants to the minister with respect to issuing or revoking a declaration, which would prevent a foreign national from becoming a permanent resident for a maximum period of 36 months, seems to go too far and must be clarified. To justify the discretionary powers that he would be given, the minister said, “We just do not have the time.”

Unfortunately, a little bit of time is what some immigrants need sometimes, if only to fill out all the forms and paperwork, to ask questions and make telephone calls to find out where a certain document has to be submitted and by when. Furthermore, massive cuts are being made to Citizenship and Immigration's client service unit. It would not be very difficult for the minister to give them a little more time. It would be the least he could do.

Michael Bossin, an immigration lawyer in Ottawa, says that, in his experience, jail time for these young offenders teaches them a lesson, they get a job, become responsible, build a family and no longer pose a danger to the public. According to Mr. Bossin, with a stay of removal, a young immigrant reacts as though he were on probation and often changes his conduct. Mr. Bossin believes that the changes to the new law could result in the export of Canada's social problems and will not deal with the underlying causes of criminality.

Once again, this government relies on clichés far too often and it does not address the source of the problem. That is what it should be doing instead.

In addition, Mr. Bossin believes that people with a mental illness would suffer undue hardship if they were deported to a country where they are often stigmatized and punished because of their condition. On that topic, Ms. Lash, an immigration and refugee lawyer with community legal services in Ottawa, says that those changes will affect many individuals with psychiatric problems.

According to lawyer Joel Sandaluk, if Bill C-43 becomes law, it is likely to divide families. He states that this is going to destroy families who have been in Canada for a long time and that, if the parents or other family members are deported from Canada, this will do irreparable damage. The damage will be irreparable because we are talking about the lives of human beings. We must never forget that.

In addition, Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that Bill C-43 raises constitutional issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers across Canada are speaking up for the rights of Canadian immigrants, many of whom came to Canada at a young age. They were raised and educated here, they started families here and they started businesses here. Many companies in Quebec City were founded by immigrants who have received major awards for entrepreneurship. By the way, I congratulate them and I am proud of them.

The government's proposal is clumsy, because it is likely to have a significant impact on immigrants who do not have Canadian citizenship. In fact, the legislation will even apply to permanent residents who have been in Canada for decades.

As justification for this bill, the government has given examples of cases where immigrants have committed serious crimes and then used the system to delay their deportation for years. Those examples show flaws in the system, I agree. It is important to study the matter. We need to know what those flaws are and make sure that any gaps are plugged rather than resorting to stereotypes.

The NDP wants to move this bill forward in committee. Despite the bill's clear deficiencies, we want to hear experts give their opinions on the matter so that reasonable solutions to the problem can be found. New Democrats believe that it is possible to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our system of appeals, and to do so without trampling on human rights. The NDP also supports those newcomers who want the government to focus on improving the fairness and the speed of the immigration system for the great majority of people who do not commit crimes and who live by the rules.

To conclude, this is one more bill where the Conservative government tells itself that there is nothing finer than to use its majority to push bills through and to steamroller over the opposition and especially over experts in the field. I have quoted a number of them here who confirm that we absolutely must take longer with, and go deeper into, social problems. This bill is oversimplified. We are showing prejudice and a lack of class in dealing with our immigrants. They are here among us and they function very well. In some cases, they are extraordinary people. I have met them, and frankly, they are models for our society.

I feel that it would be a real shame to remove these models, who are teaching our younger people profound and universal Canadian values. It would be a real shame to send these people back with their rights trampled on in this way.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou speak, and I thought to myself that this really is a Conservative government that is overreaching itself, that is going a little too far beyond the powers it should have. We see it granting itself discretionary powers in Bills C-31 and C-43, and now in Bill C-44. I know there are a lot of immigrants in my distinguished colleague’s riding, especially in the Beauport area. I am also thinking of them today.

In light of what we can see and what my colleague and his whole team can see on the ground in Beauport—the requests they get from those people—I would like him to tell us a little about how the people caught in red tape see things.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just raised an excellent point.

It is not a matter of putting everything into the hands of the financial institutions but really of ensuring that everyone has an equal chance. I think this is really the solution. We will have to consider all aspects of any concrete solution that is put forward in committee in order to remedy this problem.

There is indeed a problem. We saw it during the Liberals’ leadership race. We want to resolve this issue and we will have to hold a debate about it in committee.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have caught the ball on the fly and I am also going to talk about another historic exploit accomplished by the NDP. We are going to talk about it. Let us talk about our young people. It is fantastic. People cannot get over the fact that our party is made up of people from 20 to 70 years old, and even a little older. We have brought together people from all generations and this is a wonderful thing. I commend Jack Layton on his excellent work. I also applaud the work that has been done by my leader. It is like a breath of fresh air and we all want to start out on an equal footing.

I was saying that the NDP does not automatically favour men rather than women and I can also say that we do not favour those who are older as opposed to those who are younger and who are able to rise to the challenge of carrying on a real debate here in the House and proudly representing their regions and their constituents.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up this important point.

We can never repeat it enough: the NDP made a historic achievement when 40% of its elected candidates were women; no other party has ever achieved such a record. I believe we can congratulate ourselves, because it is fantastic. I thank my colleague for bringing it up. Women's rights are important. This is a point we have also raised when discussing other bills, which shows how strongly we support it.

Bill C-21 really aims to eliminate the influence of the richest participants in politics, so that one candidate is not favoured over another, or a female candidate is not favoured over a male one. This is a very important objective, in my eyes. The goal is not to favour one party or one group over another.

This is what we will need to discuss in depth when the committee studies this bill, to ensure there is no favouritism and all candidates have an equal chance. I believe it is important, and it also speaks to what democracy is all about. I know everyone on this side of the House shares this idea with deep conviction.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in the House and to take part in today's debate on Bill C-21. I would like to begin my comments on this bill by paying tribute to a former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, who represented the Ottawa Centre riding, for he was the first person to point out that the political donation regime in this country has a very obvious loophole. Mr. Broadbent had the sense to recognize that even though the maximum amounts of money that can be donated to a political campaign or to a political party had been reduced, by allowing these huge loans, which never really have to be paid back, it was obvious that somebody with a lack of ethical standards would take advantage of that loophole and act as though there were no financial limits. I therefore wish to recognize Mr. Broadbent for raising this issue for us in his ethics package.

The reforms to our political financing regime introduced by the Liberal government in 2003 limited donations to political parties from individuals and corporations, but, they did not limit political loans. The Federal Accountability Act, which passed in 2006, amended the political financing regime by lowering private contribution limits from $5,000 to $1,000, but it did not address the question of loans. That explains why we are debating this here today, and that is what Bill C-21 is meant to correct. Everyone agrees that this is a problem. We need to listen to all of the solutions being proposed and, together, come up with the best way to solve the problem.

Bill C-21 proposes prohibiting unions and corporations from granting loans to political parties and election candidates. Most of these changes were requested by the Chief Electoral Officer some years ago. Indeed, in 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer published a report on political financing that included a series of recommendations. The Chief Electoral Officer's proposed changes were aimed at limiting the influence of individuals or corporations on political parties, since this can occur through financing. Bill C-21 is based largely on those recommendations, which is why we support it at second reading.

This bill, if passed, would establish a strict reporting regime for all political loans, which would include the mandatory disclosure of the identity of the lender and the terms of the loan, such as the interest rates. In addition, loans by individuals would be limited to $1,100 and only banks and political parties would be authorized to lend higher amounts. Under this bill, loans from individuals not repaid within 18 months would be considered contributions, and loans not repaid to financial institutions would be transferred to riding associations, which would become responsible for their repayment.

At present, the rules for political loans do not satisfy the standards of accountability, integrity and transparency that Canadians expect of their political process. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. In that regard, Bill C-21 seems to be a step in the right direction and that is why the NDP will support it. Believe me, we are here to support any good initiative. For once, the government is headed in the right direction.

These new measures will foster greater fairness and ensure that the political process is and will always be in the hands of the people. A campaign should always be about ideas and not about who can spend the most money. That is not what a leadership race should be about. Members must first and foremost be accountable to their voters. It is important to eliminate the possibility of undue influence of elected representatives by corporations.

Bill C-21 would also amend rules for leadership races. In that regard, the most striking example, and the one that has garnered the most public attention, is the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race.

Even if companies and unions did not have the right to contribute a single dollar, they could still lend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individuals could also lend much more than they were allowed to donate. We do not want to see a repeat of what happened with that party, where six years later, leadership candidates seem to have simply abandoned the idea of repaying their campaign debts. It is completely unacceptable.

If that is the case and a candidate was backed by individuals, then in reality those individuals bankrolled a big part of the candidate's campaign. If the debt is never paid off, then we end up in exactly the situation that we are trying to avoid, which is single individuals, single corporations and single unions providing tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to one candidate.

Liberal members point out that Bill C-21 could prevent more women from entering politics. I think that the reverse is true. The bill will level the playing field so that people who are sponsored by companies, as was the case in the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race, will not have a competitive advantage over a woman who does not have this sort of backing. The purpose of Bill C-21 is to eliminate the influence of the wealthy in politics, while the under-representation of women in politics is a complex issue due to many factors that go well beyond political loans.

Some members are wondering how they will be able to raise money if backers are only authorized to donate a maximum of $1,100 per candidate. They are also concerned about the fact that Bill C-21 will prevent donors from making a donation to a leadership contestant if the candidate has outstanding debts.

The Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, recently made a very important statement. He said that it is virtually impossible to enforce the law on political loans because it is “not only overly complex, it's incoherent and ineffective.”

We have this expertise, we have recommendations from Elections Canada. This is an example that relates to Bill C-21. However, in all kinds of other scandals where we have to shed light on what happened, it is important—I cannot repeat that enough—for this government to listen to recommendations from Elections Canada and the experts working in the field, to take the necessary action.

A number of these concerns from people in the field are legitimate, and that is why we must carefully examine each clause of this bill. I hope that there will be some latitude in committee to discuss what kind of system to adopt and what protection measures could be implemented. Every time we consider limiting the ways Canadians can collect funds to participate in an election, we must ensure not only that the system is fair, but also that everyone has access to funding, regardless of political affiliation.

We support the idea of eliminating the loophole. However, we feel that some improvements are necessary in order to strengthen our system.

We are very concerned to see banks and other financial institutions become the sole sources of financing without being required to subsidize all parties, regardless of the circumstances. This is a big problem, but we can resolve it. If we want, we can find ways to include conditions that would be acceptable to everyone involved, in order to make things fairer.

I am sure that we could find a solution that would meet the government's objectives—to standardize the financial rules—and ensure that our electoral laws are applied equally across the country, so that in future federal elections, everyone—and I mean everyone—has equal opportunity and those who are supported by certain companies do not have an unfair competitive advantage.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to tell my colleague that I really enjoyed her insightful speech. It is also interesting to hear a member who has been in the House for some time and who still talks about how people feel when they witness a certain cynicism about politics. They sometimes feel like no one is listening to them.

I would like the member to comment on what an expert, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, had to say. Obviously, this is someone who knows what he is talking about. Marc Mayrand said it was impossible to enforce the law on political loans at this time, because it is overly complex, incoherent and ineffective.

I think there is a link between his comments and my colleague's speech. I would like her comments on this, namely on the importance of listening to what people in the field have to say about this.