Massimo Pacetti

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Minister of Public Safety's assessment of applications for transfer to Canada by Canadian residents incarcerated abroad, since 2006: (a) how many pieces of correspondence have been sent to the Minister of Public Safety (i) by applicants, in order to protest the treatment of their file, (ii) by Members of Parliament, in order to protest the treatment of an applicant's file, (iii) by other third parties, such as lawyers or family members, in order to protest the treatment of an applicant's file; (b) for the correspondence identified in (a), how many responses have been provided (i) to correspondence from applicants protesting the treatment of their file, (ii) to correspondence from Members of Parliament protesting the treatment of an applicant's file, (iii) to correspondence from other third parties, such as lawyers or family members, protesting the treatment of an applicant's file; and (c) of the responses by the Minister of Public Safety identified in (b), (i) how many responses have been provided within one month, (ii) how many responses have been provided within two months?

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Minister of Public Safety's assessment of applications for transfer to Canada by Canadian residents incarcerated abroad: (a) how many applications for transfer to Canada have been submitted by Canadian residents incarcerated abroad to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) since 2006 and, of these, (i) how many were accepted, (ii) how many were rejected; (b) of the rejected applications, how many have been judged by CSC not to represent a threat to re-offend; (c) of the rejected applications in (b), how many applicants have sought judicial recourse to overturn the Minister's decision; and (d) for the applicants in (c) who sought judicial recourse, how many judgements (i) have been rendered in favour of the applicant, (ii) have been rendered in favour of the Minister of Public Safety, (iii) have not yet been rendered?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that most of the people who are desperate will do desperate things, will pay whatever it is and do whatever it is. They are not going to sit in front of their computers or write a letter to the Minister of Justice, asking him what the refugee laws are before they come to Canada, asking if they meet the criteria and whether they should go or not go.

It is totally unacceptable that these people who are actually coming here from a war-torn country, the example the member gave, be penalized and separated from their kids on top of everything else, after some of the tragic circumstances they may come from.

The premise of this bill is that it is starting on a bad footing. I have no problem sending a bill to committee, but when it starts on a negative footing like this, where there are tons of people who are already against it and do not see how it is ever going to be fixed, how can one support a bill of such a fashion?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his question. I have just a couple of clarifications.

He may have been in my riding, but I do not think he met with any of my constituents. Not all Italian-speaking Montrealers live in my constituency. Most of those he met do not live in my riding.

I think it is a general concern, not just in Montreal but everywhere, that we do have to try to minimize some of the refugee claims coming in. In my speech, I did not speak about the refugees who are coming in and making false claims. What I have a problem with is the refugees who are coming in par des passeurs, meaning the people who are organizing these refugees to come in. When a refugee comes in, even if he pays somebody to go around the system, he does not know the Canadian laws. He does not sit there in front of his computer, reading Canadian laws and saying “Once I get to Canada, I am going to be able to get around the refugee act”.

What I have a problem with is that a refugee comes here, has 15 days to prepare for his hearing and, if he does not prepare it appropriately, is going to be detained for a year. That is without speaking about the kids who are going to be sent with another family.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. The title of this bill is misleading because the only thing the bill protects is the Conservatives' paranoid ideology.

Once again, the Conservatives have a repressive agenda. They want to muster support by making people feel that they are under threat. This is the same kind of tactic we see our neighbours to the south using against illegal immigrants, an easy target for those seeking to drum up support for certain intolerant politicians. As we are seeing with Conservative policies, Canada is quickly becoming Americanized.

To perpetuate the illusion that their Canada is still a different country, the Conservatives are placing disproportionate emphasis on the monarchy and past wars, but those symbols are not relevant to Canadians' day-to-day lives. The Canada we love is an open nation that respects everyone and protects its people from arbitrary rule. We are proud of our past, but we live in 2012, so, back to this bill, which has a lot in common with American policy from the 1960s.

Bill C-31 targets a group of people who are fleeing persecution and suffering. These people are easy targets for the Conservatives because they have no legal status in Canada and no right to vote. The Conservatives can demonize them without suffering any consequences come the next election.

Instead, the Conservatives should tackle human smugglers, those who make money by exploiting human misery and breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants already take huge risks to escape misery. The threat of penalties will not dissuade them from entering Canada illegally. In other words, this bill will just cause more problems for refugees and will do little or nothing to punish smugglers. Do I have to remind the House that these smugglers typically treat illegal immigrants as slaves once they get here? The government should target those who stand to gain from the crime, not victims and desperate people.

I am extremely concerned about several aspects of this bill. First of all, I would like to note the changes to the deadlines that refugees must meet in completing their forms, the basis for their claim. Refugee claimants will have only 15 days to complete and file their applications. That is not long enough. Claimants need to obtain legal advice and must have time to prepare their cases and, above all, to become familiar with how things work in Canada. It is therefore unreasonable to give them only 15 days to complete their applications.

Another aspect of the bill that concerns me is giving the minister the power to create a list of designated countries of origin. Without having to consult any experts, the minister can make decisions that will have serious consequences. This seems arbitrary to me and, considering how the Conservatives have behaved in this House and during the election, many Canadians are worried about this measure.

As I already asked, why is this bill being so hard on illegal immigrants? Under this bill, anyone who arrives in a group will be detained for one year, even 16-year-olds. This typically Conservative “solution” is completely ridiculous. It will not stop illegal immigrants from entering Canada. They are often desperate and are being manipulated by human smugglers. They will not even be aware of the risk of imprisonment that they face when entering Canada illegally. It is unlikely that refugees will have read the Canadian legislation before coming here.

In other words, this will have no deterrent effect. Furthermore, who will have to pay for these detentions? Canadian taxpayers, once again. Before the Conservatives make Canadian taxpayers pay the cost of putting more people in prison, do the Conservatives have even one study that says that this will be beneficial in any way?

This government is looking more and more ridiculous because of its lack of professionalism and rigour. What is unfortunate about all of this is that taxpayers and refugees will be the ones to pay the price.

And what will happen to the young people under 16? They will try to reach Canada with their parents, who will be in prison. Who will take care of the young people? The state, of course, and it will fall to the provinces once again. In other words, the Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook again.

Why impose a 12-month minimum prison sentence? Why send the bill to the provinces yet again? This measure seems both unnecessary and expensive. Of course, increasing the age of imprisonment to 16 is better than throwing a seven year-old in jail, but again we have to consider the effects on the children of having their parents in prison for such a long time. What is more, those who will be imprisoned will not even be able to appeal the decision.

The Conservatives are making the provinces pay again. For example, as a result of the Conservatives' policies, Quebeckers will have to foot the bill for creating a new firearms registry, building prisons, taking care of the children of imprisoned illegal immigrants, for the losses resulting from the expropriation of certain copyrights and for using the new Champlain bridge.

The Conservatives also want to balance the budget on the backs of the provinces. By constantly dumping their problems onto Quebec, the Conservatives are only providing ammunition to those who believe federalism is doomed to fail. Even separatists describe the Conservative Prime Minister as a great sovereignist.

Furthermore, those who are deported because their application has been rejected will be barred from applying for permanent residency status for five years. If we add this to the minimum one-year detention for immigrants who arrive from a designated country of origin, it will take more than six years for a person to immigrate. I do not believe that this measure is necessary. Are there studies that suggest this is the approach to be taken?

This bill raises another question. Is it constitutional? The withdrawal of permanent resident status from a person who loses their refugee status without committing a crime seems excessive. It is very likely that there will be Supreme Court challenges because those with refugee status are also protected by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legitimate applicants may be detained longer than necessary, which contravenes their right to freedom and legal rights. In addition, detaining someone for a minimum of 12 months without reviewing their file contravenes the Charter because it limits that person's right to legal recourse. Minimum detention of 12 month is also cruel for both children and parents and does not allow judges to decide whether or not the risk of reoffending justifies such imprisonment.

To conclude, I would remind the House of how much the Conservatives hate expert opinions, and that this is bad for Canada. In this case, the government is questioning the intelligence of judges and immigration experts. With this bill, the minister and the Conservative Party are claiming to be better qualified to decide the fate of immigrants smuggled into Canada than the experts are. Once again, this is a right-wing policy designed solely to create fear and exacerbate xenophobia. Yes, unfounded refugee claims must be rejected, but our government must not send the message that the doors to Canada are closed—quite the opposite. Imposing a minimum sentence, allowing the minister to decide what countries are acceptable and what countries are not, and separating children from their parents for as long as a year are not acceptable policies.

Regardless, we know that the Conservative government will not admit it is on the wrong track and will not amend its bill.

We must make efforts to prevent human smuggling and to punish smugglers, not the people who are fleeing human misery. It is unfortunate that we are again debating a bill that will not achieve its goal, simply because it is aiming at the wrong target.

[Earth Day, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, April 22 is Earth Day around the world. In Canada, community groups, not-for-profit agencies, individuals and private sector companies participated in environmental projects and events, as was the case yesterday in Montreal at the march that drew 250,000 participants.

At the same time, at La TOHU in my riding, I had the opportunity to take part in one of these initiatives, the environmental forum organized by the C-Vert team. As the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, I am proud to support initiatives to improve this planet for future generations.

One of the best ways to influence people is to lead by example. That is why I encourage people to do their part every day in order to ensure that Canada resumes its place as a leader in the environmental movement to protect our planet.

Earth Day reminds us that we have to improve the environment every day by applying lessons learned. Together we can build a better future.

[Gasoline Prices, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question in French. That way, I might get an answer.

Canadians are getting ready for a long weekend. Once again, they are being held hostage by the exorbitant price of gas. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they promised not to charge GST on gas when the price per litre exceeded 85¢. The government also promised to lower the tax on diesel fuel by 2¢ a litre, which never happened.

What do the Conservatives intend to do now to give Canadian families a break at the pumps?

[Member for Papineau, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night the political arena moved to the boxing arena—a metaphor that reminds us of the sometimes merciless struggle of political life.

The Conservatives, true to their nature, were confident and attacked their adversary even before the fight began. Their combatant was impetuous, their confidence unshakeable.

The fight began with a solid attack from the man in blue, whose only strategy seemed to be to score a knockout. However, he failed to take account of the Liberal's ability to stand up to repeated blows and come back even stronger.

Like the Liberal spirit, the hon. member for Papineau showed his constancy, patience and perseverance. He came back strongly and showed everyone that brute force, intimidation and a simple strategy may count for something, but training, technique and resilience will always triumph in the end.

Congratulations to my friend and colleague from Papineau. Let this fight be a sign that Liberal strength is returning.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals always ask the toughest questions. I will try to answer that one.

I did not focus on the U.S. aspect in the sense of the problems we have had in the past. Since the Conservative government has come to power, it has been able to mess up the free trade agreement by giving up on the softwood lumber issue and paying all kinds of money. The lumber and pulp and paper industries in the U.S. have become much stronger by using our money. The Conservative government failed to negotiate with the Americans' on their buy American policy. We could not contribute there.

With any free trade agreement there is good faith and both countries expect to benefit from it. Both countries should benefit from it because there is economic activity that was not there before. The way to benefit is through trade, the exchange of goods and services. The services would include labour, which means that people in both countries would work. If we are unable to have the Americans uphold our free trade agreement with the U.S., I am not sure how successful we would be with respect to other trade opportunities.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the new member for the question. Her riding is next to mine.

If I have understood her question, free trade agreements should be bilateral and multilateral at the regional level. I believe she mentioned Europe. Trade agreements with just the United Kingdom or a single country are no longer acceptable today. We must sign free trade agreements with all of Europe.

In principle, we should do the same thing with South America. I believe that this government is trying to sign agreements with Asia. However, Asia is not just one country. Some countries have problems with democracy. I believe we should move slowly and ensure that Canadian interests are protected in any free trade agreement that we sign.