Bill C-43 (Historical)

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to limit the review mechanisms for certain foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible on such grounds as serious criminality. It also amends the Act to provide for the denial of temporary resident status to foreign nationals based on public policy considerations and provides for the entry into Canada of certain foreign nationals, including family members, who would otherwise be inadmissible. Finally, this enactment provides for the mandatory imposition of minimum conditions on permanent residents or foreign nationals who are the subject of a report on inadmissibility on grounds of security that is referred to the Immigration Division or a removal order for inadmissibility on grounds of security or who, on grounds of security, are named in a certificate that is referred to the Federal Court.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. Permanent residents are contributing to our country, both economically and culturally.

I agree with my fellow Liberal colleague who talked about the 1.5 million permanent residents, who are part of this society. The Conservatives are looking at a small number of cases involving people who have committed a serious crime and who should be deported. We all agree on that. However, they are targeting those 1.5 million.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouth.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill we are looking into today. It is, by all accounts, a bill to allow Canada to deport non-citizens who commit serious offences. This, in itself, is an eminently supportable goal, but it does not fully describe the entirety of Bill C-43.

As my colleague from Newton—North Delta, the New Democratic critic for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, has indicated, New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsible judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens. I agree that all Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent crimes in our communities. I believe it is also important for us to note that the overwhelming majority of newcomers to this country are actually law-abiding and follow the rules. Those newcomers also support the broader concept that is the stated intention of Bill C-43.

We cannot mix up the facts as we consider how best to weed out a small group of offenders who are no more a reflection of any community they come from than any domestic criminals are to their own home towns. We can see there is agreement on intent, but it is not a free pass for the government to do whatever it wants. New Democrats would like to see amendments to the bill that would allow us to arrive at a piece of legislation we can support. Ultimately, our criticism of the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relates to a handful of issues, not the least of which are the concentration of power in the minister and the abandonment of an appeal process.

New Democrats do not support slamming the door on an appeal process, just as we do not support granting the minister unilateral powers to stop a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on what is being called public policy considerations. Surely we can agree that is a vague and broad definition.

We can still hear the peanut gallery on the other side.

In fact, the manner in which this bill concentrates more power in the minister seems to indicate some kind of disbelief in the system that is in place, some kind of a belief that what the process really needs is a sheriff. In Bill C-43 we see that. Not only can the minister declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations, but the minister may also, at any time—and I repeat, at any time—revoke or shorten the effective period of a declaration of inadmissibility.

This may sound like jargon, but there is a bigger problem at play that others will recognize, and that is the disturbing trend we see from the government, the trend of concentrating more power in the hands of individual ministers. This arbitrary power is granted at the expense of transparency and clearly defined policies that can be consistently administered.

Members may recall that this is one of the criticisms that was central to the changes to the Fisheries Act in the last budget. Those changes gave the minister discretionary power to determine whether a fish species was important enough to warrant protection. This bill continues that unfortunate trend. It is a pattern of behaviour that puts the government and its decisions behind closed doors. It makes our government more opaque and quite the opposite of the transparent and accountable administration Canadians desire and were promised. However, there is good news. This is something that can be fixed. If there is a willingness, there is a way.

Ministerial discretion can be replaced with clear and effective guidelines that can be publicly administered, which is something we hope the government will consider. It is something we know that Canadians want and will support.

What is more than a little strange is the way in which Bill C-43 would give the minister discretionary powers to act in the manner of the sheriff I just described. However, at same time, it would relieve that same person from similar responsibilities related to appropriate discretionary powers. We see the call for the minister to be given the power to declare a foreign national inadmissible, but in those cases where the minister is actually required to use extraordinary powers to ensure the system is performing to its potential, the Conservatives are begging off that part of the job.

As we know, the current arrangement means that on the request of a foreign national or even on the minister's own initiative, the minister is required to examine the circumstances of a person who is considered inadmissible on grounds of security, humanitarian or international rights violations, or organized criminality. In those instances where the minister feels a compelling case has been made, he or she can grant an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and take into consideration the interests of a child directly affected.

My colleague alluded to this a while ago with respect to children who came here with their family and may not have received Canadian citizenship. If they are permanent residents and have been here since the age of six months, or whatever age, and all of a sudden they find themselves in a dilemma such as this, the minister would then be able to say that they would have to go home to a land where they have never been. The new arrangement would relieve the minister of this obligation altogether. It is as if the Conservatives cannot fathom that there would ever be circumstances where an appeal might be legitimate or even successful.

Let us look at our own criminal justice system. We have had people criminalized and put in jail, but when they have appealed the decision, and sometimes it has taken years, the government has had to actually apologize for that, which is why the appeal process is important.

However, without appeal, it is a black and white view that does not match the reality of the world. It assumes that there will never be a miscarriage of justice, when we know full well that the potential for mistakes is always present, which is why we have appeal processes in the first place.

To recap, the minister wants to be able to act in a decisive manner on a case-by-case basis if he feels it is warranted. On the other hand, the Conservatives are asking to be excused from the responsibility of the office in terms of adjudicating what is basically an appeal process. What we have here is an appeal for both a concentration of power and the removal of a check and balance function. Again, it is about transparency and accountability. We need a check and balance function.

For New Democrats, these items need to be fixed. We have additional concerns with Bill C-43, which relate to changes in the definition of serious criminality as well as the intention to accept the decision of foreign courts that may not operate at the same high standard as ours do in Canada.

As a bit of an aside, I am sure there are many professionals struggling for recognition of their foreign credentials who are looking on with a sense of disbelief. When it comes to branding someone a criminal, the Conservative government is willing to accept the standards of courts from countries whose professional credentials are more vigorously challenged. I am sure that point is not entirely lost on people who are struggling on that front.

To be clear, the larger goal of Bill C-43 is not without its merit. New Democrats think this is a case where we can tighten things up. We could take the bill to committee, roll up our sleeves and do the work to ensure Canada comes out of the process with a better Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, most of us in this place know that there are bigger challenges that we must address as well. We hear it from our constituents and we see it in our offices.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am little confused with what I am hearing from my colleague across the way. I hear the NDP saying that the Prime Minister is very controlling, does not allow any latitude, does not allow for decision-making, yet in the same breath, the Prime Minister is being condemned for being too loose, for leaving everything open and the minister is making all the decisions. I wonder which way we are looking at that.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not particularly say that the Prime Minister was controlling, but obviously based on the acts Conservatives are taking it is obvious that they are controlling. Let us see who are really being victimized, for example: immigrants, seniors, aboriginal people and students. These are the people who are being victimized by the government. If Conservatives could have tied the words “victims”, “offenders” or “crime” to their changes to OAS, I think they would have done it.

Let us look at the real picture, which is that the services that could help people make sure they have a good start here in Canada with respect to immigration, to keep them out of trouble, to make sure things are going smoothly, are the very programs the government is cutting. So even in places like Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, we are struggling with reduced services from the federal government, which includes the closure of the citizenship offices. Those offices were in Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay and were all offices that people from different corners of my constituency would have gone to for assistance. Guess where they are coming now? They are coming to our offices because those services are not available in northern Ontario anymore.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a victim here. Many would argue that the government is attempting to label those 1.5 million permanent residents who call Canada their home. Many of these individuals have family members abroad. Quite often a child or a young adult leaves a country, whether it is the Philippines or India, and they arrive in Canada. One of the things this legislation is proposing to do is to deny people the opportunity to visit Canada if their spouse is not of good character. They themselves could be of great character and good health, with no risk of not returning, but they will be denied because their spouse in good health, even though they have a child here in Canada.

Does the member recognize this as something that is just not fair and in the best interests of public policy?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. It is a government that is really creating a crisis out of a very small number of people. We are willing to work with the Conservatives. Every member of Parliament is here for a reason, which is to make sure that, when legislation is put place, it responds to the needs of Canadians, to the needs of people.

In that respect, we need to make sure that we do not see ourselves before the courts, that we are not causing more havoc to laws in Canada that are quite problematic. This is about working together to fix a piece of legislation.

As we said, we believe this has a good intent, but at the same time there are some changes needed. What we have seen over and over again is very little flexibility on the side of the government to want to improve legislation, to ensure it is not to the detriment of people. That puts people in a really bad way and it is not a fair way.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I want to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who just spoke. I could feel how passionate she is about this issue.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton—North Delta who has played such an important role in the House on immigration and refugee issues. I thank her for her fine work on that.

The bill addresses the issue of people who come to Canada and commit crimes. The timing of the bill is interesting, because it comes on the heels of some very serious, difficult and controversial changes in immigration and refugee policy that have touched many members of my own community in Parkdale—High Park. I am speaking specifically about the refugee reform bill, Bill C-31, and also about cuts to refugee health care.

Part of my community is a place where many newcomers first come to Canada. We have seen waves of refugees come from different parts of the world. There are many religious institutions and places of worship that are amongst the oldest in the city of Toronto, because my riding is the first stopping off point for many newcomers to Canada. We have the oldest continuously functioning Jewish schul. We have one of the oldest Hindu temples. We have religious institutions of various denominations.

More recently we have many refugees coming from places such as Tibet and Hungary, as well as other places in Eastern Europe. Something that has been very controversial in our community, and we have joined health professionals in opposing, are the changes to deny some refugee claimants health care benefits.

I have seen, first-hand, people in my community who are directly affected by these changes. It has not been helpful that certain communities, such as the Roma community, have been demonized by the government. It creates a situation that is unhealthy for them here, even prior to the status of their refugee claim being assessed.

It is interesting that the Conservatives are now introducing a bill to get the immigration discussion back into a territory where they feel more comfortable, and that is the tough-on-crime approach. I see that in the political context of dealing with refugee and immigration issues.

The bill would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister in terms of discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. He can declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if in his or her opinion it is justified by public policy considerations. The bill also relieves the minister of the responsibility to consider humanitarian and compassionate situations such as taking into consideration the interests of a child. The minister no longer has to consider humanitarian concerns at all.

It also gives the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exemption to the family member of a foreign national that is “inadmissible” if the minister believes it is against the national interest, specifically examining national security or public safety.

There are also changes in the bill about what constitutes serious criminality. Previously a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two years or more constituted an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal. This would revoke that right with a conviction of six months or more, which has to be explored and investigated as to what kinds of crimes we are looking at and who would be most likely to be affected.

It would increase the penalties for misrepresentation, taking them from two years to five years for inadmissibility for permanent resident status. One thing that is very positive in the bill is that it would clarify that if someone enters Canada as part of an organized criminal activity, that on its own would not constitute inadmissibility, which may be important to people who are trafficked into Canada through some kind of criminal organization.

While I believe Canadians are legitimately concerned about the issue of non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, we have a concern about concentrating more arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of newcomers to Canada, and I have direct experience with many newcomers in my community, are law-abiding people who do not commit crimes. We believe the Conservatives ought to spend more time and effort ensuring these people are treated fairly and are reunited with their families as quickly as possible.

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. We cannot take someone such as Conrad Black and welcome him back to Canada with open arms and claim, as the minister did, that this was independent of politics and handled by bureaucrats, and then introduce a law like this which clearly would concentrate more discretionary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Suddenly he seems to have a conversion on the road to Damascus and wants to deport convicted criminals instead of welcoming them with open arms. That is quite a change. However, there are a number of other ways the minister could help, such as maybe no longer appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board and having a fairer process there.

While the issue of criminal activity and ensuring we are not getting the wrong people in Canada is important, we believe there are concerns that are not being taken into account. Mental health issues are a big area of concern. In my communities and in communities across the country, there are people who come here as refugees from war-torn countries. They do not get the kind of mental health support they need. We know there is a disproportionate representation of people who are mental health survivors in the prison system who desperately need help and would benefit greatly from help here in Canada, including many refugees whom deportation will not help.

Canadians would see people from war-torn countries being disproportionately rejected from Canada under the bill. Mental health is clearly a huge issue, as is the lack of ability to appeal. That is also left up to the discretion of the minister. The lack of appeal is something that has been criticized in other immigration initiatives by the government and is certainly something that I would question here.

While of course we support ensuring that Canadians are protected from criminals who would take advantage of our immigration and refugee system and come to this country and commit crimes, there are problems with the bill that need serious discussion, investigation and change in order to do the job that it is meant to do.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was talking about concerns with increasing ministerial discretion. It raises an interesting point. I am sure my friend is aware that in 2011 the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion asking the minister to stop two people from coming to Canada due to their comments encouraging hate and violence against women and homosexuals. Unfortunately, there was no ability for the minister to stop those people from coming into the country. The bill would address that issue.

Do the New Democrats agree or disagree with Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly? Do they think that people who promote hate and violence should be allowed into Canada? If they do not think they should be coming into Canada, why will they not stand and support the legislation to give the minister the power to do exactly that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not read the bill in question because it is not a bill that has been before the House. Obviously as champions of human rights who work constantly against racism and sexist behaviour, we support those goals.

What is a concern is concentrating discretionary power in the hands of the minister through the bill and casting a net so wide that it has unintended consequences.

Let me just give one more example quickly. Suppose someone comes to this country as an infant, the child of immigrants or refugees, grows up in this country, spends their life here and, as an adult, commits a crime. However, he or she has never taken up Canadian citizenship. It seems extreme that the person could potentially be sent back to a country where they have no connection, no family and no relationship because they have served a sentence of six months in a Canadian jail.

I would question the broad net of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, most people recognize that there is a difference in the types of crimes that are committed. This goes to the member's response to the last question, which was in regard to crimes that would ultimately lead to a conviction for which a person could serve a sentence of six months or more.

When we say a sentence of six months, we are not just talking about jail time. That could be part of a conditional sentence and so forth. It is just a summary conviction that ultimately leads to a minimum of six months.

We just passed legislation not that long ago that if a person is caught with six plants of marijuana, he or she would go to jail for six months. That would mean that if a person was here for many years, as the hon. member pointed out, 10 or 15 years plus, and even if they have a family, that person could actually be deported because they had six plants of marijuana. It is not rape or murder or something of that nature, but it is a violation of the law because the law says we cannot have six plants.

I wonder if the hon. member could provide comment on whether she sees that as justice being served in that situation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is in keeping with what I have been describing, which is that reducing the rule from two years to six months could capture far too many people in this wide net. It could include someone who might be a first-time offender, someone who has lived here all his or her life, or someone who has a mental illness.

It could be someone who just made a terrible mistake and who would benefit from rehabilitation and who would benefit from perhaps other opportunities and could then become a productive and positive member of Canada. However, one stupid mistake, and as my colleague has indicated, a crime of growing some marijuana plants, could land them in this situation.

It seems overly harsh and overly discretionary to have this kind of consequence for that crime.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43. It is legislation that deserves consideration but, like much that comes from the government, it has significant flaws.

When members on the other side talk about the bill and ask us whether we want criminals who should be deported to get deported, the answer to that rhetorical question is yes. No one is opposed to that. That is why we are actually supporting the bill in principle. Certain people who come to Canada, commit violent crimes, abuse the appeal process and who manage to stay here for many years ought to be deported.

Therefore, the answer to the rhetorical question of whether criminals who should be deported get deported, is absolutely yes. Is this the way to do it? Are the measures in the bill balanced, fair and reasonable and do they comply with the rule of law?

The government claims that Canada is a champion of the rule of law throughout the world. Is it reasonable for a rule of law to have such a broad category that says that anyone who may get a six month sentence for a first offence, after having been in the country for 15, 20 or 25 years and having been here since he or she was a child or an infant, should get deported to his or her so-called home? The home of someone who has been here since the age of 2 and is now 25 is Canada. The fact is that for the 1.5 million people who are here as permanent residents, who have been granted the right to live here as permanent residents and have the right to obtain citizenship once they apply, this is their home.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about a person being convicted of growing six marijuana plants. That person is treated as a serious criminal and is subject to deportation to the country of his or her birth without any right of appeal. I do not think that complies with the rule of law. In fact, a number of lawyers who have talked about this suggested that this would not pass with the courts and that it would face a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Some hon. member]

Bring it on.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Bring it on, someone says. The Conservatives want to keep the courts and lawyers busy challenging their legislation. One would think they would desire to have legislation that meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that does the job it is supposed to do.

A member from the opposite side raised another aspect of this a couple of times. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park has quite ably talked about the potential for arbitrary decisions and broad categories. There are broad categories in the bill but then the Conservatives mention specific examples and ask if we do no agree that this should happen.

The member for Brampton West said that his party wants to prohibit the entry of someone who promotes hatred and asks why do we not support a measure that would do exactly that. Well, it does not do exactly that. It says, in very broad language, that the minister would have the power to deny entry to anyone for 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

It might have the effect of allowing that particular thing to happen as part of this broad category, but if what the Conservatives want to do is prevent people coming to Canada on a temporary visit to promote hatred, then they should say that they are going to give the minister the power to prevent people from coming to Canada to promote hatred. If they want to do exactly that, they should do exactly that. Public policy is a very broad consideration. There is that famous legal case in England that said that making decisions in the courts based on public policy considerations was an unruly horse. In other words, one could not control what would be contained under that consideration.

Public policy considerations are so broad that they give the minister almost absolute discretion. That is where we think this bill goes overboard. It gives too much discretion and arbitrary power to the minister. We want something that is flexible and something that will work to ensure we do not allow people into Canada who commit serious crimes, who are unworthy of continuing in Canada and who we would never allow to become citizens if they applied.

We are talking about criminals who have been convicted of significant offences. If they applied for citizenship, which they are entitled to do as permanent residents at a certain point, would they be given citizenship? The answer to that question is no, they would not be granted citizenship. Do we want to find ways that will force people who should be deported to be deported? Yes. If the appeal process is so long, ungainly and unruly that people can abuse it, we need to fix the appeal process, shorten the time limits and find a solution to the root of the problem. As one of my colleagues said, we do not need a sledgehammer to swat a fly. If a less restrictive measure can be used, in other words, one that does not affect so many other cases that it should not affect, then that is what should be used.

We are talking about the unfortunate arbitrariness that applies when we use these broad categories. When we take away the requirement of the minister to take into account humanitarian considerations and international rights violations, that removes the possibility of allowing someone to enter this country. It takes away the requirement of the minister to at least take that into consideration and say that we do not have to worry about that. This is a significant problem.

The risk that we run here is that we may be deporting offenders who may have been sentenced to six months or a year in jail, who arrived in Canada with their parents at a very young age and who may know nothing of the country to which they will be deported. By doing that, we would be leaving at risk people whose only country to which they have an attachment is Canada and they may have been in Canada for many years.

I will quote some of the comments that were made by a group of lawyers in Toronto last week who are active in immigration law. They are very familiar with the broad range of cases. They say that we are talking about many people in the African, Caribbean, Italian, Greek, Portuguese, English, Irish and Scottish communities who have not acquired Canadian citizenship despite the fact that they have been here for a long time. They say that the removal of the appeal process for those who have been sentenced to more than six months would be a terrible burden when their cases ought to be considered.

First offenders who have been here for 15 or 20 years and are incarcerated learn things. They improve their lives. People can go to jail for six months for shoplifting if they do it often enough. Perhaps they are drug addicts and need rehabilitation. Those people would be treated as the dross of society and sent to some potential far corner of the world where God knows what will happen to them. This is the kind of thing we are opposed to. We support the bill in principle in terms of doing what it should do but want to see it substantially improved in committee.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position on this is not surprising as it has always been soft on crime and criminals and has ignored victims. However, I find it astounding that its members are now soft on foreign criminals also.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Victims of Violence are all in support of the bill. Does the member not support these organizations? Do the NDP not support organizations such as these?