Jasbir Sandhu

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling for me to see power being consolidated in the minister's office. We have a very capable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but it still troubles me that the decisions would be made solely by the minister, not by an expert panel as agreed upon by all parties in the House.

It is really puzzling to me why the minister would want to have all the power in his own office, why he would make arbitrary decisions that should be made after receiving advice from experts.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats recognize and respect our responsibilities to refugees, unlike the Conservatives who have taken an approach that would damage Canada's reputation internationally.

It is good that the minister is in the House. It was interesting for me to go over some of the notes on Bill C-11. The minister not only praised, but called it a miracle, that all parties had worked together to develop Bill C-11. That bill was passed in the last Parliament.

Why is the minister moving away from that? Where is he going? Bill C-11 was passed with the consensus of the House.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Before I get to that, we have heard in the House that in the previous Parliament, Bill C-11 was passed. I want to quote what a member of the government was saying at that time. He said:

I am pleased to report that the proposed reforms in the original version of Bill C-11 received widespread support. However, many concerns were raised in good faith by parliamentarians and others concerned about Canada's asylum system. We have, in good faith, agreed to significant amendments that reflect their input, resulting in a stronger piece of legislation that is a monumental achievement for all involved.

Who said that? The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I quote him further. He said, “I am happy to say, create a reform package that is both faster and fairer than the bill as it was originally tabled”. He even praised how parties worked together to reach consensus and come up with that bill that worked for all parties. He went on to say, “Miracles happen”.

He further went on to say that the government took constructive criticism into account and recognized the need to work together. That was just a year ago. That was Bill C-11. All of the parties worked together to come to a consensus that would deal with some of the issues such as backlogs, having a fairer system for refugees, and so forth. He went on further to say, “The reforms we are proposing should have been implemented a long time ago”.

What has changed since June 2010 until now? Is it because the Conservatives got their slim majority and they are bringing out their hidden agenda? Instead of catching the smugglers, now they want to punish the refugees.

I will outline my concerns in regards to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 is basically an omnibus refugee reform bill that combines the worst parts of the former Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act, from the last Parliament, with Bill C-4, , preventing human smuggling, from this Parliament. It has basically three main purposes: a repeal of most of the compromises from former Bill C-11. It reintroduces Bill C-4, preventing human smuggling, which targets refugees instead of the smugglers. It introduces the collection of biometrics for temporary residents.

Bill C-31 would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by allowing him to name safe countries and restrict refugees from those countries. Under the former bill, Bill C-11, this was to be done by a panel of experts, including human rights experts. Refugee claimants from safe countries would face extremely short timelines before hearings, 15 days. They would have no access to the Refugee Appeal Division in the event of a bad judgment. They would have no automatic stay of removal when filing for a judicial review and could not apply for a work permit for 180 days. It would also limit access and shorten timelines to file and submit a pre-removal risk assessment application and evidence.

Not only would the minister have the discretion to designate countries of origin, safe countries, the minister would also have the power to designate a group as an irregular arrival and determine what condition would be placed on those designated as refugee claimants.

Let us take a look at the designated countries of origin, DCOs. Designated countries of origin would be countries which the minister believes do not produce legitimate refugees, usually because they are developed democracies. The designated countries of origin would be decided by the minister, not by experts as was previously agreed to with the consensus of all parties.

Refugee claimants from the designated countries of origin would face a much faster determination process and a faster deportation for failed claims. Furthermore, an initial form would be filed in within 15 days.

Failed designated countries of origin claimants could be removed from Canada almost immediately, even if they asked for a judicial review. In other words, a person could be removed before his or her review was heard. DCO claimants would have no access to the new refugee appeal division.

There are a number of concerns with this. The accelerated timeline of 15 days would make it difficult for people to get proper legal representation. This could lead to mistakes and subsequently a negative decision. Legal experts have warned that these accelerated timeframes and restricted access to the refugee appeal division would create an unfair system.

Furthermore, the effect of the accelerated deportation would mean that people would be removed from the country before the legal process had run its course. The refugee appeal division should be available to all claimants.

There are also concerns in regard to changes to the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. The humanitarian and compassionate consideration is a tool whereby a person can stay in Canada despite not being eligible on other grounds. Under Bill C-31, claimants waiting for an IRB decision could not apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration at the same time. A person would have to choose at the beginning whether he or she wanted to file for refugee status or for humanitarian or compassionate consideration.

Failed refugee claimants could not apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration for one year following a negative decision, by which time they would likely be deported.

There are a number of concerns with this aspect of the bill. This strips much of the usefulness from the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. Humanitarian and compassionate consideration is a very important tool in our immigration system. Many people whose refugee was claim denied could nonetheless have a legitimate claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Therefore, a failed refugee claim should not get in the way of humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

Another part of this bill that concerns me is clause 19(1) which adds new language into the loss of status section for permanent residents. It adds that existing criteria for ceasing refugee protection can be a reason to lose permanent residency status. Included in the list is if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist.

In summary, there are many concerns with this bill. The new bill does not address some of the needs of our current system. The Conservatives are playing politics with refugees, and concentrating excessive and arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The Conservatives continually frame their draconian legislation in terms of bogus refugees and those abusing the system, but what they are really doing is punishing refugees with ineffective measures that will not stop human smuggling.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10 and its amendments from the other house.

The bill is not one bill, it is nine pieces of legislation combined and repackaged into one bill that has been rammed through the House over the past month by the Conservatives. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the Conservatives' 100-day passage promise from the last election.

The bill was rushed through the House so quickly that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was unable to complete a cost analysis before the bill was sent to the Senate. When he did complete a partial analysis of the bill, he found that just one portion of the bill would cost provinces an additional $137 million per year and the federal government an additional $8 million per year. Therefore, the total cost would be $145 million per year for just one portion of this huge bill.

The cost per offender will skyrocket from $2,575 to $41,000, which is a sixteen-fold increase. This is a direct contradiction to what the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice have claimed in that there will be no additional cost to the federal government associated with this portion of the bill.

I have stood in the House and asked the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice to explain why they have failed to do an adequate costing for Bill C-10. I have asked them why they failed to study the impacts of Bill C-10 on the criminal justice system, on our crowded jails and our overwhelmed courts. I have asked why they have never bothered to figure out how much the bill would cost the provinces. I have asked them why they are ramming this reckless bill through, a bill that would actually do nothing to make our communities a safer place.

It will not surprise most members of the House that the Minister of Public Safety did not bother to answer any of these questions. Instead of answering critical questions about a reckless public safety agenda that was destined for failure, the minister seems to prefer to hurdle accusations and insults across the floor. He stood in the House and accused me of supporting child molesters when he knew very well that not only did New Democrats propose provisions in Bill C-10 to target child molesters in the first place, but we also offered to split out sections of the bill dealing with sexual offences against children, enshrining victim's rights in the parole process and fast-tracking approval for them. However, the Conservatives refused.

Sadly, we know that facts do not really matter to the Conservatives. They do not look at the statistics. In the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-10, the Minister of Public Safety told senators to ignore the facts. He said, “I don't know if the statistics demonstrate that crime is down. I'm focused on danger”.

This is not the first time we have been told to ignore the facts by the Conservatives. In response to questions about Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice said, “We're not governing on the basis of the latest statistics”.

The Conservatives do not believe in real facts that we get from Statistics Canada and other places. When it comes to public safety, their motto is “ignore the facts”. That seems to be in the Conservatives' talking points. The Conservatives want to ignore the facts because the facts are not on their side. The facts will tell them that the bill will cripple our criminal justice system and will not make our communities any safer.

The Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties association and many experts from across the political spectrum have urged the government to rethink the sweeping changes to the criminal justice system contained in Bill C-10. Provincial leaders are speaking out and they have come to the committee to make passionate speeches and pleas to the government. They have been clear that they are not ready to bear the cost of this prisons agenda. Nor do they agree with many of the measures contained in the Conservative bill.

The prisons agenda has already failed in the United States. We have seen examples of this in Texas, California and southern states, where the states basically were led to the brink of bankruptcy. We have seen governments in the states moving away from the same approach the Conservatives are proposing here in Bill C-10.

States like Texas are now abandoning the mandatory minimum and three strike policies that led to ballooning prison costs and prison populations. They have found these approaches have actually done little to prevent crime, but have done a great deal toward bankrupting states.

Canada should be learning from the mistakes of our neighbours to the south, not repeating them. We need practical solutions on crime that improve safety in our communities, not old strategies that are expensive and have proven to be failures.

I know my Conservative friends do not like facts and do not talk about them, but I will give some facts anyway.

The crime rate, since peaking in 1991, continues to decline. In 2010 police reported crime in Canada continued its downward trend. Both the volume and the severity of crime fell from the previous year down 5% and 6% respectively.

There were approximately 77,000 fewer police reported crimes in 2010 than in 2009. Decreases of property crime, namely theft under $5,000, mischief, motor vehicle thefts and break and enters, accounted for the majority of the decline. Police also reported a decrease in homicide, attempted murders, robbery and assaults. These are the facts.

The 2010 crime rate, which measures the volume of police reported crime, reached its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts. The crime severity index, which measures the seriousness of crime, dropped to its lowest points since the measure first became available in 1998.

Meanwhile in prison only about one in five inmates has access to programs such as anger management and substance abuse, according to Howard Sappers, the correctional investigator.

Canada has more people in pretrial custody than actually serving sentences at a ratio of about 60:40. Pretrial custody is at a provincial level.

Let us talk about the cost. The cost of the federal prison system has risen 86% since the Conservatives became government. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, Canada's federal correctional system cost was nearly $1.6 billion per year, but the projected cost for this year, 2011-12, has increased to $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion per year. By 2013-14, the cost of the federal prison system will almost double to $3.14 billion, according to the department's own projections.

In 2010-11 alone, more than $517 million will be spent on prison construction. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a total annual average cost per prison cell has risen from $109,000 in 2000 to $162,000 in 2009-10. That is an increase of almost 48%. A single new low-security cell amounts to $260,000. A single new medium-security cell amounts to $400,000. A single new high-security cell amounts to $600,000.

The average annual cost per woman inmate was $343,810. The average total annual cost per male inmate in maximum security was $223,687. The cost per male inmate in medium security was about $141,000. The cost per male inmate in minimum security the cost is about $140,000. The average cost per inmate in a community correction centre was $85,000. The average cost per inmate on parole was close to $39,000.

The Conservatives have been upfront about the costs of their bills in the past. When asked about the cost of Bill C-25, which ended two-for-one credit for time served in pre-sentence custody, the Minister of Public Safety originally said that the price tag would be $90 million. Then he said it would be about $2 billion over five years. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer ultimately found that the bill could double the annual prison costs from $4.4 billion to $9.5 billion in five years. That is a lot more than what the government is telling Canadians.

There has been no analysis or consultation with respect to the increased costs for enforcement or prosecution, which will be downloaded to the provinces. The provinces are already talking about the downloading of the costs of this crime bill that is being rushed through Parliament.

When I put all of this analysis together and I look at the struggling bill, I am faced with the sad reality that members opposite really do not care about the outcome and ultimately public safety.

In Surrey, where I come from, there are murders and gang violence. It is real, it is not just fodder for scoring political points. This is why New Democrats have called for more investment in front-line police officers and youth gang prevention programs. Instead, the Conservatives have cut those programs across the country and fail to fund new police officers.

People in communities like mine and across the country are left wondering why they are going to pay for a failed prison agenda.

I will be voting against the legislation. I ask members on the other side of the House to consider their communities, the people they are here to represent, and to vote against the bill. If I do not appeal to their sense of responsibility and perhaps compassion, then I hope to appeal to their logic or reasoning.

I can ask questions about the serious flaws in the bill. For example, Canada has more people in pretrial custody than actually serving sentences. These people are kept in provincial facilities, adding cost and burden to already overstressed court systems. Why is the government imposing more costs on the provinces without providing assistance to keep their systems afloat?

Mandatory minimums which remove judicial discretion are counterproductive. They can actually lead to judges giving lesser sentences than they might otherwise because they have to rely solely on the legislation as their sentencing guide. In particular, for cases like sexual assault, why is the government removing judicial discretion?

The mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana is more than that prescribed for child sexual assault. How is that logical?

Currently one in five inmates has access to programs like anger management and substance abuse. The bill would lead to even more crowded prisons, straining already thin resources for programs.

At the end of the day, 90% of inmates are going to be coming into our communities. They are going to be living in our neighbourhoods. We need programs that will help them to reintegrate into society so they do not reoffend and go through the revolving door about which the minister has talked. This is about public safety. How can the government put forward a bill that will mean even more offenders do not get the treatment they need?

Currently, the aboriginal population represents 2.8% of the entire population of Canada but account for 18% of the federal prison population. One out of every five prisoners in the federal system is aboriginal. How can the government bring forward legislation that will worsen this overrepresentation?

It is becoming very clear to me that there is no logical plea in this House that will ever elicit a rational response from the Conservatives because they do not want logic or facts to enter this debate, if we can call it that. Instead, they just want Canadians to be afraid so they will accept it when they pass such a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation like Bill C-10 into law, a bill that would paralyze our criminal justice system and crowd our prisons to the point that they will no longer have the capacity to rehabilitate prisoners who eventually will come back into communities.

There is another fact that Conservatives do not like to face. My community, like many communities across this country, has actual gang violence. We need more police on the streets. We have been urging the Conservatives to put more resources into long-term policing efforts by the communities. The FCM and a number of other organizations have been asking the government to fund more police officers on an ongoing basis.

We need jails with the capacity to rehabilitate instead of just acting as factories for producing more gang members. We also need to end the cynical politics of fear. I want to see real changes to make this country a safer place in which to live. I want to see investment in crime prevention and in youth gang prevention that stops our kids from getting into gangs in the first place.

I want our prisons to function so that criminals are actually rehabilitated and do not leave prison just to re-offend. I want more investment in front line officers. I want people to be less afraid and our communities to be safer places. I want a criminal justice system that prevents crime and thereby reduces the number of victims in this society. We need to invest in programs that prevent crime from happening in the first place.

Instead, the Conservatives are ramming through a bill that would cost billions of dollars and a bill in which the experts warn that safety concerns have not been addressed. We must not let the Conservatives convince us that this bill would do anything to make our communities any safer. I do not believe it would. All the Conservatives want to do is make Canadians afraid.

I will continue to do my job, to stand up and question, to oppose and even make appeals to reason and logic, even though I know the Conservatives will ignore my questions, call me names and accuse me of being with the child pornographers. One would think that everything I have been describing is as low as it gets but, sadly, it is not. The worst part is that they know everything I am saying is true. They know that Bill C-10 would not make our communities safer but they do not care. They do not want to look at the facts.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like any good manager, we would presume that we would have a budget or a cost analysis of how much this particular huge bill would cost Canadians. Yet we have no answer from the government how many billions of dollars it would cost. Not only that, we would think we would learn from our neighbours. We saw these kinds of laws introduced in the United States back in the 1980s and 1990s. We saw the results. Basically, it has been a disaster. A number of states in the United States were at the brink of bankruptcy, as it was costing billions of dollars. How is the costing going to impact on the provinces?

[National Defence, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Langridge served Canada honourably in Bosnia and in Afghanistan.

The inquiry into his death will help military officials with suicide prevention and investigations. The Fynes have been waiting in limbo for a decision from the government for many months. Why have the Conservatives continued to stonewall the Fynes? Will they do the right thing and provide funding for legal representation for these hearings?

[National Defence, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will see if the minister likes my tone better.

The Military Police Complaints Commission is holding a hearing into the death of Corporate Stuart Langridge, a Canadian Forces member who was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and committed suicide on a military base while under suicide watch. All the parties participating in the hearing have been given funding for legal representation, except Stuart's parents, Shaun and Sheila Fynes.

The chair of the commission has ruled that they should be given funding. Will the government comply?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, March 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I come from British Columbia. Over the last number of years we have seen the court system overwhelmed and overburdened with the number of cases that are coming through. Not only that, a number of cases have been thrown out because it has taken too long to get them through the due process.

We have a court system that is already plugged. The provinces are wondering where they are going to find this money. On the one hand, the government is picking the pockets of the seniors. On the other hand, it has this grandiose plan to spend billions on prisons. So my question to my colleague is, where is the money coming from? There is only one taxpayer, whether the tax is paid to the provinces, the municipalities or the federal government. Where is the money coming from for all of this?

[Public Safety, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the F-35 fiasco, the Conservatives will not come clean and they are just not getting the job done on behalf of Canadians.

However, on another topic, under the government, CSIS has faced a slew of problems and controversies. Now we are hearing concerns about CSIS turning up unannounced in Canadians' workplaces. What guidelines are in place to ensure that surprise workplace visits by CSIS officers are not used to harass and intimidate Canadians?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that my colleague speaks not only highly of the Northwest Territories but that he is also a very hard-working member of Parliament for the north.

Trade deals are a reality, as we live in a global society. However, are the bases of these trade deals fair, equitable and sustainable? We know for a fact that Panama has been used as a money laundering state by drug cartels from Mexico, Colombia and other parts of South America.

I am very concerned about the danger of some of the money being laundered through Panama being invested in products or funnelled to Canada. Does the member share those concerns?