Rosane Doré Lefebvre

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who has raised quite an important point: our responsibility as legislators in this House.

When we look at certain bills the government has introduced in this House, it is sad to see that they sometimes look like something hastily written on the back of an envelope. The government seems to do this to satisfy public opinion, but the consequences are disastrous. Most of the bills we have seen will have a truly significant impact on our judicial system. They will completely change the face of our country and what it means to be Canadian.

This brings to mind minimum sentences, which are so harsh and remove considerable discretionary authority from judges, who unfortunately no longer have any leeway in sentencing. The same kind of thing is happening here. We get the impression that cases that receive a lot of media coverage are being used as a pretext to introduce bills that do not at all correspond to what we should be doing as legislators. What we should do is be responsible and not make cuts to public safety or border services, as the Conservative government is currently doing.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for rising to ask me a question.

However, I think he misunderstood my comments. I am really sorry to have to call out the minister. I did not talk about family members of dictators, but rather about people who have opposed a dictatorial regime. The minister really missed the point. I am talking about people who would have been part of an opposition party, for instance.

I can even give another example. Consider the example of a young girl who distributes literature to explain what is going on in a dictatorship, and who could then be deported.

I was talking about people at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Unfortunately, those people could be deported if this bill is passed.

I would remind the House that I am not talking about family members of terrorists, but rather about people who oppose a dictatorial regime.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I had the exact same reaction as my colleague. I thought, “Come on.” Quite frankly, it is outrageous to see that in the legislation.

As we can see, this is a glaring error that is not covered by Bill C-43. I, personally, am in utter shock. There was also much talk about the sweeping new discretionary powers that will be given to the minister. It is extremely worrisome, as my colleagues mentioned.

I also looked into what the Barreau du Québec said about this. It feels that placing more discretionary powers in the hands of the minister is one of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-43. The president of the Barreau du Québec is asking that this part be taken out of the bill because it is completely unjust.

The brief is worth reading. I do not know if my colleagues on the other side of the House have had a chance to read it, but I hope so, because it is very interesting.

And where does that lead us? We can look at Bill C-43 and see that it has several major flaws, but what is the real debate we should be having here?

Sadly, it is clear from these glaring omissions—and I hope these are omissions by the Conservative government—and this approach that the government has failed to deliver on public safety and cross-border security issues. But these problems need to be addressed.

The government across the way is proposing to make budget cuts of more than $685 million to the Canada Border Services Agency, the Correctional Service of Canada and the RCMP by 2015. These cuts will only make the problem worse. Bill C-43 attacks people who are far too vulnerable.

Unfortunately, I am out of time. I am available to answer any questions my colleagues might have.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for my first speech of this year. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome back all my colleagues on all sides of the House. It is very nice to see them in such good form here today to discuss Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

Before I get down to business, I would like to thank our official opposition critics who have done a remarkable job on Bill C-43. They worked so hard on this file in committee to present reasonable amendments. Those amendments were unfortunately defeated by the Conservatives, but the work had been done. I thank the member for Newton—North Delta, our main immigration critic, and the member for Saint-Lambert, the assistant immigration critic, for the great work they have done. They are helping us enormously today in our work on Bill C-43.

Bill C-43 is a long bill that I took the liberty of plowing through. I also looked at the various positions of the groups that have expressed an interest in the bill in recent weeks and months and of those who appeared before the committee. It was extremely interesting to read their concerns.

First of all, the official opposition agrees that dangerous foreign criminals should be removed. However, it has concerns: we must treat refugees in a fair and equitable manner and we must have a fair and transparent judicial system. For a country as rich and industrialized as Canada, the least we can do is have those kinds of bodies.

I have a lot of concerns about the way the Conservatives treat our immigration system. Let me explain. In my riding, we had quite a high-profile removal case on January 18. It concerned the Reyes-Mendez family, a Mexican family consisting of a father, a mother and two children. One of the children attended Mont-de-La Salle secondary school, and the daughter had just been accepted at the CEGEP. They had exemplary academic records.

The entire family had been in Canada for four years and had completely integrated into their neighbourhood in the eastern part of Laval. They were well known to local organizations, they were involved in the community and the church, and the children were very much involved at school. Without warning, they received a document informing them that they were to be removed to their country.

The problem is that Mr. Reyes-Mendez had previously been removed to Mexico several times. We therefore feared for their lives, and that is still the case since none of our requests to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration has been granted.

We went to the airport to support the family on the day they were removed. I believed right up to the last minute that the decision would be reversed and that it was utterly impossible that these people's lives would again be jeopardized. But no, 20 minutes before the aircraft took off, we received a one-line email stating that the minister would not intervene in the case. I have some major concerns about the way they look at the immigration system on the other side of the House.

I would like to thank the members of my team for the work they did with regard to the Reyes-Mendez family. They worked tirelessly, day and night, for several weeks. It was really intense, particularly during the last week, when emotions were running high. A wonderful team worked on the file but, unfortunately, was unsuccessful.

I want to get to the point and speak about Bill C-43. I already have concerns about the Conservatives' positions. It is easy to imagine the concerns I have about this bill.

I picked out the aspects of this bill that I was most opposed to, and I listened to what several stakeholders had to say to better understand their position. The thing on my list that concerns me the most is the clause that prohibits humanitarian and compassionate relief.

I did some research and found a brief that was submitted by the Canadian Council for Refugees on October 26, 2012. This clause is also one of the main concerns of the members of this council with regard to Bill C-43. I would like to quote the council since I found that it had a worthwhile approach to this issue. Here are its concerns regarding the clause that prohibits humanitarian and compassionate relief.

These inadmissibility sections (34, 35 and 37) are extremely broad and catch people who have neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime, and who represent no security threat or danger to the public. While the current Act causes considerable hardship and injustice because of the breadth of these provisions, it does at least contain mechanisms by which individuals’ particular circumstances can be taken into account—by grants of Ministerial relief or, in appropriate circumstances, a waiver of inadmissibility on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This bill would eliminate both remedies. Section 18 of the bill would make Ministerial relief meaningless in most cases....By also eliminating access to H&C relief..., the bill will leave no mechanism to respond to compelling humanitarian circumstances or to ensure that those who are innocent or who present no danger to Canada are not unjustly targeted.

I would like the members opposite to pay attention to the next paragraph.

The elimination of access to H&C will prevent consideration of the best interests of any affected child, contrary to Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There are some examples provided, and I could not get over what was on the list. There are several examples, but I will choose one at random. This is an example of who could be caught by these provisions:

Someone who is or was a member (even at a very low level, and without any involvement with violence) of a national liberation movement such as the ANC, or a member of an organization opposed to repressive dictators such as Gaddafi or Pinochet...

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his very interesting speech.

We have worked together on a number of files somewhat related to the bill before us, but also related to the Conservatives' philosophy and their way of handling our immigration system. The Stanstead border crossing, where there have been some irregularities over the past few months, comes to mind. My colleague is very familiar with that issue.

What is the real issue we should be debating? Does my colleague think that the recent cuts to public safety and border services are catastrophically huge and that they will have a major impact on our legal and immigration systems?

That is not a very hard question to answer. I would like to know what he thinks.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. A question came to mind as I was reading the provisions of Bill C-43. I came across the clause that prohibits the invocation of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In my opinion, this is quite serious.

By eliminating this possibility, we are preventing the minister from taking into account the best interests of children, which goes against Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am wondering what my colleague thinks about this about-face. Once again, the Conservatives are ignoring international rules to which Canada has already agreed.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pontiac for his excellent question.

This is indeed a very serious problem, not just in the RCMP but in any workplace. Sexual harassment in the workplace is not part of the job. It is not something that should happen on the job. We should be opposed to harassment, no matter where it happens. Naming the problem is a very important way to acknowledge that it exists.

I am not saying that there are huge numbers of sexual harassment cases in the RCMP. I am saying that we have to tackle problems as they are and with the right kinds of tools. My colleague asked an excellent question.

Among other things, people in the RCMP need to be educated and should be asked to take training on harassment. A number of issues could have been resolved in this bill, and I would like to come back to what was mentioned earlier. For instance, a completely independent civilian body should be set up to take care of complaints within the RCMP. The police should not be investigating the police, especially in cases of sexual harassment.

Many of the amendments that were presented were designed to solve the problem and ensure progress toward transparency, independence, and a more modern RCMP. Unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against every one of our amendments.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments about the NDP's position on this bill.

The bill does not deal with sexual harassment at all, or very little. The fact that the words are not even mentioned in the bill shows that the government could not care less about addressing the issue.

Regarding sexual harassment in the RCMP, what intrigues me about the Conservatives' approach is its complete lack of consistency.

On November 8, 2012, a motion was put forward in the Senate by a Conservative senator. The motion requested the production of a report on harassment in the RCMP. On the one hand, they present this kind of motion, and on the other, they introduce a bill that pretends to address sexual harassment in the RCMP.

Honestly, why are the Conservatives so inconsistent?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as we can see from these initial exchanges in the House, Bill C-42 is very substantial and complex. In fact, even those who studied it in committee sometimes are proposing minor changes. So, it is an honour for me to rise today as the official opposition deputy critic for public safety to defend the NDP's position and explain why we will vote against Bill C-42.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks about processes and what happened in committee, I want to say it was a real pleasure and honour for me to work on Bill C-42. This gave me the opportunity to meet members of the RCMP, and I made friends along the way. I met courageous men and women who poured their heart out to explain their position on the bill. Today, I want to sincerely thank them for doing so. They have enabled me to learn more about the RCMP, which is not present in Quebec. That is why we are somewhat less familiar with it, even though it is a national police force.

The NDP supported Bill C-42 at second reading so that this legislation would be studied in committee, because we had many questions about it. We felt that a lot of work remained to be done on this bill. At the time, I very much appreciated the Minister of Public Safety's speech, particularly when he said he was open to amendments from all sides of the House. For us, it meant that the door was wide open to improve a bill that really deserved to be examined. It was also a way of showing Canadians that, regardless of the side of the House on which we sit, we can work together to ensure that bills are the best they can be once we have reviewed them in committee and returned them to the House.

As I mentioned earlier, we supported Bill C-42 at second reading and we were very pleased to study it in committee. In this regard, the first thing I want to mention is that the committee had very little time. Sometimes, we even had to invite several witnesses at once. This meant that we could not ask them very many questions, which was quite unfortunate. Bill C-42 is huge and it deals with many provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. We therefore did not have time to update this legislation, even though it would have been necessary. I was deeply saddened that the debate was cut short. We did what we could with what we had. We tried to work with that.

The second point I want to mention is the time allocated for committee review. Some RCMP members who worked on a similar bill over 20 years ago told us that, the last time the government amended the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the process took over 10 years. By contrast, we had only a few weeks. I think we worked too quickly. However, that is not really a problem since at least we are still here today to spend a little more time on this legislation.

I also found it sad that none of the amendments proposed by the opposition were accepted. The only amendments that were accepted were those proposed by the government. What I found even sadder was that most of these amendments had to do with correcting spelling or translation mistakes. They were not substantive amendments. They merely sought to correct spelling mistakes and typos. It seems as though the bill was drafted in a rush, on the back of a napkin, and that the government then wanted to correct the mistakes it found. That was also a sad thing to see.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not take a serious look at the points made by witnesses in their testimony. That is the work that we, as the official opposition, decided to do regarding Bill C-42. We really wanted to take a closer look at what witnesses told the committee, and we wanted to work with them to make substantial and important amendments to give more substance to the bill.

Today, we are back in the House and, considering that none of our amendments were accepted and that the work in committee was done so quickly, we cannot support this legislation. I will explain why a little later on in my speech.

It is also important to mention that RCMP members were not consulted before Bill C-42 was drafted. My colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, pointed this out at the beginning of his speech, and it is important to remember that.

They were presented with a fait accompli. They were told what was going to be done and what would be introduced. The government did not even deign to ask the members of our national police force what they thought. I am extremely disappointed about this.

Again this morning, I spoke with members of the RCMP. In particular, I spoke with Mr. Gaétan Delisle, who represents the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association and is someone who has filed several hundred grievances for RCMP members from all parts of Canada. In fact, he is still doing so strongly and passionately.

We talked about some of the clauses in the bill. It can be quite difficult to understand what is in this bill.

We looked at clauses 31.3 and 31.4, and we had a hard time figuring out what they involved. Eventually, we figured out that these clauses really had to do with the grievance process and the possibility of using notes, reports and other material in filing a grievance.

Bill C-42 does not deal just with sexual harassment. I would also like to mention here, for the information of members who do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that a very large part of Bill C-42 involves workers' rights.

From now on, they will not be able to use certain important notes or documents in filing their grievances. This applies specifically to one particular case in the RCMP's code of ethics, which says a member cannot disobey a lawful command, except if he can prove that the command is illegal or breaks a law.

Without access to certain documents, notes or reviews as evidence, it cannot be proven that such a command may be illegal, at the end of the day. This is a huge protection for workers that is being taken away, and I think it is totally wrong. We were told in committee that Bill C-42 took rights away from workers. I still cannot believe that no one has been able to remedy the situation.

However, what can we do? This is the way things are; we do not have a majority.

Because I cannot raise all the issues in Bill C-42 that should be discussed, I want to talk about sexual harassment. In this bill, which is supposed to resolve the sexual harassment issue, there is no reference to harassment or sexual harassment.

This is incredible. In fact, this is one of the reasons why we are moving a motion to remove clause 1, the title, because it has no connection with the content of the bill.

Credible witnesses appeared before the committee to give us their views on sexual harassment in the RCMP. As I mentioned earlier, the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association told us how important it was to mention it in the bill. That would have helped to protect workers in the RCMP, but it was not done.

The committee also met with Ms. Séguin of Quebec's Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail. She spoke passionately about her work, which involves protecting employees who are victims of harassment, regardless of their line of work. She was shocked that there was absolutely no mention of sexual harassment in the bill.

We in the official opposition tried to propose amendments of substance to remedy the situation. Some of our amendments sought to make it mandatory for all members of the RCMP to take training on harassment, in connection with the RCMP Act. Part of the work should have involved education and helping RCMP members do that work.

In conclusion, I hope that I am asked a number of interesting questions because I still have so many things to say about Bill C-42. That being said, I have to reiterate that, unfortunately, for these reasons, we will be unable to vote in favour of Bill C-42.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. In committee, the official opposition proposed a number of amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, they were all rejected. This bill is a response to numerous cases of sexual harassment, which is sad. That is how the government presented the bill, saying it would target sexual harassment, among other issues.

However, something is bothering me and many of my colleagues: why is there no mention at all of the term “sexual harassment” in the bill? Why is it not mentioned, since this is the issue that the bill seeks to address?