Madam Speaker, I am only able now to rise for the first time to address the substance of this debate, having been here for several hours. I am grateful to have a chance to put a question to the member for Kingston and the Islands.

While we have been debating, I received an email from a 19-year-old young woman in my riding who wrote me this. Her name is Rachel, and I did not get permission to use her last name. I will read this for Rachel. She wants her voice heard.

I do not want to have to explain to my future children that I was alive when refugees were turned away from the United States while Canada did nothing. I understand that some statements have been made; however, I believe that action needs to be taken….I would like to ask you to try to ensure that we are on the right side of history.

I applaud so much what the Liberal government has done in bringing in 40,000 Syrian refugees. I appreciate the Prime Minister taking an early stand, and the symbolism is profound that our new Minister of Immigration is himself a refugee originally from Somalia. However, symbolism and good wishes will not be enough. Amnesty International is right. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers is right. The 200 law professors who signed the a are correct. We need to take action proactively before people are caught in the jaws of a reckless and discriminatory government.

The Prime Minister does not have to attack the President of the United States. He can try to have good relations. However, by our actions, we will be known.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen:

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for not only addressing her question here, but for reading a letter that one of her constituents wrote to her. That is extremely noble.

I would argue that there has not been merely symbolism coming from the government. As pointed out by other colleagues this evening, this government has delivered 40,000 Syrian refugees alone last year to Canada. It has done so much more than the Conservatives did when they were in power, and more than NDP members had committed to doing in their election platform.

I appreciate the member’s comments. I disagree that it is just about symbolism. This government has shown actual, real leadership when it comes to this file.

……….

 Ms. Elizabeth May:

Mr. Speaker, I have been delinquent in not profoundly thanking the member for Vancouver East for bringing forward this emergency debate tonight.

The nature of the Safe Third Country Agreement is explained in the open letter that has been referred to many times this evening, and that is:

Canada’s immigration legislation indicates that, in determining whether a country should be designated as “safe” for refugees, consideration must be given to the country’s human rights record and to whether the country complies with the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Convention against Torture.

This letter, signed by eminent jurists, law professors, concludes that currently the executive orders the president has made, combined with his musing that torture works, they say:

We also note that they are inconsistent with the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights….

I know that as things now stand, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has not answered this question. The Minister of Immigration can, as an individual minister, immediately suspend this in order to ensure that no one is trapped, no one is prevented from finding safe haven in Canada if they happen to be in the U.S.

I would ask if the hon. member would consider, and I think there are other hon. members in the Liberal caucus who may agree, that this should be a subject for ongoing debate, and that the government should change its mind

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that this is an issue for ongoing debate and in fact it is an issue, as are many of the issues that this presidential decree has raised, that we are seeking clarity on and that we are monitoring very carefully.

As of the present time, the U.S. government continues, as far as we can tell, to meet the conditions of the agreement. That does not mean we are not monitoring. We are monitoring. We are watching and making sure that those conditions are in fact being met.

The post Parliament: Emergency Debate Regarding U.S. Travel Ban appeared first on Elizabeth May.

When he speaks of presentations this evening that were thoughtful and calming, I must say his was one. It was thoughtful and it took into account what we all feel, that we must not be imagining for one moment that Canada wants to engage militarily in Syria. It is nice to reaffirm that there is consensus in this place on that. I also appreciate his recognition of the toolkit of statecraft and diplomacy of the United Nations, and our other relationships.

I would ask him very specifically if it would not make sense for us in this House to agree by consensus that there is more we can do in humanitarian effort, particularly in those very significant humanitarian crises that exist in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, by providing more assistance directly through humanitarian relief in the camps and by offering that assistance to those governments that are hosting all those refugees.

Erin O’Toole: Mr. Chair, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her nice remarks in welcoming me. Certainly we have shared some time at Dalhousie Law School together, although not at the same time.

Her questions are good ones. We are working with other states in the region to address the refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war in the last two years. Members on this side have expressed that we need to do more and to particularly watch how that evolves.

There is also security ramifications caused by a refugee exodus under these circumstances. Importantly, I have also heard some discussion in the chamber tonight about NGOs and actions by non-state actors on the ground in Syria, and I think we have to express some words of caution.

We are not even at the halfway point in 2013. I would remind this House that Syria is in a state of war, and as I said in my remarks, with very hard to identify teams within that war. There is certainly a united front against a regime, and then there is the regime. There have been five journalists killed this year in Syria, and we are only days past Press Freedom Day. Last month, two archbishops were abducted. It is a country with which we have to proceed cautiously, even with non-state actors on the ground.

The post Emergency Debate – The Situation in Syria appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am hearing reports from Syrians who are trying to get an appointment with the embassy in Lebanon, but the local staff, the guards around our embassy, treat them disrespectfully and do not let them get to the door. It is a conflict situation, and the other misconception is that the refugee camps are run by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. They are not; they are run by the host countries. Once people are there as refugees, they are still afraid. Some of them are so afraid that they are not prepared to go to the Red Crescent or the Red Cross to report in, so that they can be recorded.

It is a difficult situation. I am not saying it is easy, but we are not doing enough to reunite some of the people who still could be brought home to their families in Canada.

Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question and her concern. It is always good to look internally and believe that we can be doing more. This is something on which we are very, very focused. It is a priority for us. We know we are dealing with real people here in very difficult situations. I can appreciate and attest to some of the comments that the hon. member made, but it is something that is, as I stated previously, of primary concern to our government and we are focusing on it on a full-time basis.

The post Emergency Debate – The Situation in Syria appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am hearing from refugees from Syria in my own community that there are also systematic rapes of women occurring. I cannot verify this, but they are hearing from relatives that rapes are also occurring in the refugee camps, where people are also at risk.

What I would like to ask is whether we should be pushing as hard as possible for a peace process for bringing people to the table, bearing in mind that we would be getting involved in a military conflict where we are not sure which side we would want to see in power?

In that context, does the hon. member think there is some potential for pushing Russia to get Assad to the table for real negotiations with all the players to get to a ceasefire and a peace process?

Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, recent reports show there is the potential for an international conference. Secretary of State Kerry has just concluded meetings with his counterpart Lavrov, in Moscow, and we are hopeful that an international conference will happen.

It was also noted that there had not been, as there had been in the past, any adherence by Moscow as to what the status of Mr. Assad would be. I say that because this is a bit of a change from what the news reports. There might be other reports that we hear later. There is a sense right now that even Russia is getting concerned and fatigued with the situation in Syria.

What we must do is to be focused on what the member has underlined, that there has to be a political solution to this. Diplomacy should be ramped up and we should ensure that our friends in Russia get the message yet again that it has a role here. It has been supplying arms, everyone knows that, and if this continues, it will be even more culpable than it was before.

The post Emergency Debate – The Situation in Syria appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“This legal challenge argues that the Conservatives’ June, 2012, severe cuts to refugee health care, made without notice or consultation, are inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand Canada’s international obligations under the UN Refugee Convention,” said May.  “We agree that, because of the documented hardships the cuts have already caused, they are also a breach of Canadian tradition and values.”

The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), established in 1957 and run by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, covered basic health care for refugee claimants and refused claimants until they became eligible for provincial health care or were removed from the country.  With an Order-in-Council, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has replaced it with a complex and confusing program denying basic and sometimes-life-saving medical care to thousands of vulnerable people.

“There are now refugee claimants who can’t be treated unless their condition poses a public health or security concern,” said Donald Galloway, Citizenship and Immigration Critic for the Green Party.  “Yet some of these claimants cannot be removed from Canada, due to a government-issued moratorium on removals to particularly dangerous countries like Afghanistan or Iraq.”

The Green Party believes this policy is not only cruel, but will cost Canada’s Medicare system more money when our already-stressed emergency rooms have to take care of people whose illnesses have been left undiagnosed and untreated for too long.

“The government is withholding diabetes medication and care for pregnant women yet claims that it is only trying to ensure that foreign nationals are not provided with medical care that Canadians have to pay for,” added Galloway.  “It is quite appropriate that Minister Kenney’s Order-in-Council be challenged before the Courts.”

The CDRC and CARL distributed a list – compiled by Canadian doctors – of refugee claimants or refused claimants who were denied medical care or medication.  Most patients are not identified to protect their privacy.

Backgrounder:  http://elizabethmaymp.cawp-content/uploads/ifhp-backgrounder-legal-summary.pdf

The post Federal Court Challenge on Constitutionality of Refugee Health Cuts Supported appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Motion No. 2 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 3 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

“must answer truthfully all questions that are relevant to the application and that are put to them”

Motion No. 5 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 2 with the following:

“may not seek to enter or remain in Canada as a”

Motion No. 7 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), notice also received from:
Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) and Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — December 3, 2012

Motion No. 8 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), notice also received from:
Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — December 3, 2012

Motion No. 9 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 3 with the following:

“— other than under section 34, 35 or 37 with respect to an adult foreign national — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than an adult foreign national”

Motion No. 10 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), notice also received from:
Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) — December 3, 2012

Motion No. 12 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 4 with the following:

“interests, based on a balance of probabilities;”

Motion No. 13 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 4 with the following:

“or process as they are understood in Canada, based on a balance of probabilities;”

Motion No. 14 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 4 with the following:

“referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c), based on a balance of probabilities.”

Motion No. 15 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 16 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 17 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 18 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 5 with the following:

“by a foreign national, declare that the facts established under section 34, paragraphs 35(1)(b)”

Motion No. 19 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 6 with the following:

“is not detained, an officer may impose on the person any of the conditions referred to in subsection (3), as well as any prescribed conditions.
(5) The conditions imposed under”

Motion No. 20 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 21 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 22 — November 29, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), notice also received from:
Mr. Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) and Ms. Sims (Newton—North Delta) — December 3, 2012

Motion No. 23 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 8 with the following:

“in paragraph 36(1)(b) or (c), other than a crime that was punished in Canada by a conditional sentence under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
(2.1) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2014 unless, before the end of that day, the application of this section is extended by a resolution, passed by both Houses of Parliament, that this section continues to be in force.”

Motion No. 24 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 25 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 28 — December 5, 2012 — Ms. May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) — That Bill C-43, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 16 the following:

“(3) Sections 5, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 26 cease to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2015 unless and to the extent to which, before the end of that day, the application of any of those sections is extended by a resolution, passed by both Houses of Parliament, that any of those sections continue to be in force.”

The post Amendments to Bill C-43 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On October 29^th, the committee heard testimony from representatives of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and the Canadian Council for Refugees about the ways in which Bill C-43 exposed vulnerable immigrant groups to deportation without adequate recourse for appeal, or a substantive understanding of the contextual considerations which may have led to deportation. The committee also heard testimony from Julie Taub, an immigration lawyer, who applauded the expediency to which Bill C-43 proposed to remove foreign criminals from Canada.

On October, 31^st, the committee heard testimony from representatives of Amnesty International, who believed that Bill C-43, especially in its removal of appeal mechanisms for individuals facing deportation, prevented the administration of justice for immigrants, and voided Canada of its international legal obligations. Testimony was also heard from Tom Stamatakas of the Canadian Police Association and Sharon Rosenfeldt from Victims of Violence, who both believed that Bill C-43 would make Canadian communities safer. Additional testimony was also received from James Bissett of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, who advocated that Bill C-43 is long overdue and is a modest first step in combating the problems facing Canada’s immigration system.

The post Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

When I talk to immigrants in Edmonton or anywhere else, they are the ones who are most upset when people, who get away with serious crimes, come from abroad to be part of Canada as landed immigrants or permanent residents. The expression “get away with murder” is true in some cases but a little extreme in most. However, the immigrants I talk to are some of the most upset about others who do not play by the rules and take advantage of Canada’s generosity or, as some would suggest, over-generosity.

No one is suggesting that we take away people’s rights or ability to appeal, but they should not appeal endlessly for seven to ten years, time and time again, when the evidence is clear and it is simply the immigration industry prolonging the process.

The immigrants I talk to play by the rules and they expect everybody else to as well: existing Canadians, natural born Canadians and new Canadians.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for Edmonton Centre for catching me on that. I certainly did not want to refer to Nelson Mandela as a war criminal.

My point is that history is written by the victors and quite often someone who is accused in another country and called a convicted terrorist or something we would not want in Canada. However, if we lose our ability to examine particular circumstances, we lose our ability to think and to be truly Canadian.

I believe that what we want to do with this legislation is consider all the ways in which it could go awry, which, I am sure, is the minister’s intention in bringing this forward. For example, if a member of a family that has been in Canada for a long time is convicted of the misuse of a credit card or of forgery, the bill says “no more chances, you are deported”. That cannot be the Canadian way.

The post Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act (Bill C-43) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It is described as an act for the faster removal of foreign criminals. If we were debating the title of the act, I really do not think there would be anything to debate. I cannot imagine any Canadian who does not think that a foreigner who is a dangerous criminal should be removed from Canada.

[08iNJ2SySsc]

As has happened lately with a number of pieces of legislation brought before the House since I have been a member, I have been surprised how far the titles have morphed from the kinds of titles of legislation I once studied at law school. It used to be that we would open a statute and we found that, not only was the book dusty, the title of the legislation was just a blanket description of what was at stake: an immigration and refugee statute or a law to deal with the Fisheries Act.

Now we have titles that seem to, and probably do, come out of focus group testing for legislative titles that would be zingers in future election campaigns. As someone who studied statutes, I find this a dismaying trend. I realized the other day while watching a U.S. program on HBO called The Newsroom that this was invented by the Republicans south of the border. I do not watch enough U.S. TV to have known that if I had not been watching The Newsroom.

Back to the topic, this piece of legislation, which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, definitely has merit if what it is about is getting rid of dangerous foreign criminals who have no right to be in Canada.

I assert that what we have here is always going to be a question of balance. We do not want dangerous foreign criminals with no right to stay in Canada to be here, threatening Canadians who have every right to be here. However, we also recognize that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, permanent residents and citizens of Canada have charter rights. The question then is whether we have the right balance. Are we protecting permanent residents who are not a threat to our society or are we sweeping them up in the vast and sweeping discretion of the minister?

This could do serious injustice to people who are important parts of Canadian society, who contribute in positive ways and who we would not want to be caught up in a sweep that did not take account of individual rights, individual situations, humanity, compassion, holding families together and other aspects that have always been part of the consideration before deportation takes place.

When we ask if the balance is right in the legislation, I turn to some of the recent comments by members of the Canadian bar. Toronto lawyer Mendel Green is quoted in this story from the Toronto Sun as saying:

I am concerned about the monumental affect this will have on the immigrant community if it becomes law…. This will be a life sentence for many people.

Lawyer Joel Sandaluk, at the same press conference, representing the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said:

This will destroy families who’ve been here for a long time…. It will create more criminals if parents or other family members are removed from Canada.

I have further quotes from other lawyers. Lawyer Guidy Mamann also said this about the potential residents who could be swept up and deported with no chance of appeal and without any exercise of individual discretion. He said:

These are young children brought to Canada at a young age as permanent residents, raised and schooled in Canada…[but] never took out citizenship…. It is unconscionable that a country like Canada, which has always allowed for second chances, to now embark on a new ‘one strike you’re out’ approach.

Last, I will cite lawyer Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association, who said that the bill is drafted in such a way that it could easily sweep up people guilty of minor offences and have them deported. He said:

We are not talking about serial killers, murderers or bank robbers.

Let us take a look at what kind of people could be swept up by the bill and what kinds of crimes people would have to commit for there to be no right of appeal and the person would just be sent out of the country. This can be described as crimes for which people are convicted for a sentence of six months or more.

The current law deals with crimes where sentences are two years or more. To bring it down to six months or more for a crime for which the ultimate sentence could be as much as ten years in jail would bring in a series of crimes that do not threaten the security or at least the safety of Canadians. In other words, it would take in a number of crimes that do not involve any threat of violence. If someone is found guilty of a crime and sent to jail for six months or more, nowhere does this new legislation require that the crime be a crime of violence or something that threatens the security of Canada.

The kinds of crimes listed that I found might fit this definition for which someone who is a permanent resident could get a six month sentence but a ten year maximum would include the deportation for possession of a stolen or forged credit card and the use of that credit card knowing it had been cancelled, the unauthorized use of a computer or forgery, and a host of other offences that carry ten year maximums. In that case, we are talking about no discretion, no appeal.

What could easily happen is that if any one member of a family, a parent or a younger member, children born in Canada, relatives participating in Canadian society or any one part of the fabric of a Canadian family, is found guilty of something that is not in any way a crime of violence but receives a sentence of up to six months with a maximum of ten years, that individual is gone. The individual would have no chance to plead his or her case.

I will quote one other lawyer on this matter who, I am proud to say, is the current nominated candidate for the Green Party in Victoria in a byelection. His name is Donald Galloway. He is a founder of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and is also a professor of refugee and immigration law at the University of Victoria. In looking at this, he suggested that there was an inherent legal balance built into section 34 of the current act so that the courts have accepted broadly defined prescribed grounds of inadmissibility that are found in section 34(1) based on the assumption that these same sweeping inadmissibilities are balanced by the provisions in section 34(2).

If Bill C-43 were enacted, it would fundamentally destabilize the legal balance by removing the layer of individualized, personalized, case-by-case review guided by, in some cases, humanitarian concerns and compassion that acted as a safeguard against the breadth of prescribed grounds for inadmissibility found in section 34(1). Beyond issues of compassion and fairness, this ill-conceived change would force the courts, as they have already indicated, into a position where they will need to intervene and fix the act to provide a reinterpretation to ensure that the act remains constitutional, otherwise it will violate the charter.

I will now turn my attention to another section of the act that I find particularly egregious and which does not deal with criminals and does not deal with people already in Canada.

If the minister, under the new clause 8, which would change section 22 of the current act, is dealing with a foreign national who has applied to become a temporary resident of Canada, the minister would have unfettered discretion to make a decision to refuse that person the right to be a permanent resident of Canada with no objective criteria that can be measured. This is very unusual. The clause states that section 22.1(1), which can be found under clause 8 in the proposed Bill C-43, allows the minister, “on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national…may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”. This banishment can last for up to three years.

Going back to my time in law school doing legal drafting and statute interpretation, we cannot find anything that gives us more freewheeling power to make up our mind which ever way we want than the language “Minister is of the opinion”. No court will be able to step in and say that it does not like the way the minister has exercised his or her discretion. I am using his or her as this will apply for all time. I am not just thinking of the minister at the moment. This would be a permanent change to our legislation and a dangerous one. The legislation says “the Minister is of the opinion”, and then what? What is the minister of the opinion of? The Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations. We could not come up with something that gives more freewheeling discretion, not bound by anything in particular. What kind of public policy considerations? Maybe the public policy considerations could be that we have too many of a certain kind of person in a town. Who knows? It is without objective criteria.

I hope that when this legislation goes to committee and is studied in committee we can rebalance the balance that must be there.

I stand here as leader of the Green Party not in favour of keeping dangerous foreign criminals in Canada but in keeping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

The post Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act (Bill C-43) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The Harper Conservatives are framing this issue and legislation in terms of ‘getting rid of criminals faster,’ said May, “but it is really designed to give the Minister of Immigration more ‘discretionary’ power and completely remove many individuals’ right to due process.”

Bill C-43 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to give the minister immense power to decide whether an individual is ineligible to become a temporary resident for three years, based on absurdly vague and broad “public policy considerations.”

Where the Act now deems an applicant inadmissible if found to have engaged in acts of subversion against democratic governments, this has been expanded to the again vague and undefined “espionage that is against Canada or contrary to Canada’s interests.”

The new family provisions allow the minister to deem someone inadmissible on the basis of family links or ties – again undefined – very probably leading to guilt by association.

Previously access to an independent tribunal (the Immigration Appeal Division) was barred when an individual had been sentenced to more than two years. This will be lowered to 6 months. Shoplifters beware. Canada needs independent, non-political decision-makers to review whether certain circumstances justify the removal of those guilty of lesser offences. Some of them may have been raised and educated here.

“The government seems to be afraid of delegating the task of formulating just and appropriate solutions to objective, thoughtful, and, most important, independent decision-makers who can consider all the circumstances of a case. Instead it seems to be intent on introducing cookie-cutter justice where one size fits all. This will be a recipe for disaster for many individuals,” said Don Galloway, a founding member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and Green Party candidate in the upcoming Victoria by-election.

“Slowly, but surely, the Conservatives are moving Canada away from being a country based on the rule of law to one based on the rule of one minister. We are also replacing compassion with arbitrary and punitive treatment,” concluded May. “All Canadians should be worried about this.”

The post Bill C-43 = the Faster Removal of Civil Liberties Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.