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

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-43, which proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As my colleagues before me indicated, we will support the bill at second reading, but this support is far from being a blank cheque. Bill C-43 has a number of significant shortcomings that will need to be addressed in committee. On this side of the House, we want to co-operate with the government to make Bill C-43 a fairer and more balanced bill.

Canadians expect us to be capable of reaching compromises. Compromises are at the core of a democratic system such as Canada's. Refusing to compromise is tantamount to failing to fulfill one's democratic obligations. Since the last election, our colleagues opposite have too often shown themselves to be closed off to dialogue and compromise. This is very regrettable. I sincerely hope that that will change.

Canadians want us to impose tough penalties on non-Canadians who commit serious crimes in Canada. I am certain that law-abiding newcomers to Canada—and it is important to say that they are almost all law-abiding—share our opinion.

What people in this country are asking for is a guarantee that our judicial system is efficient and sufficiently flexible when it comes time to return criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship to their countries of origin. Canadians especially want the government to invest more energy in ensuring that applications by newcomers are processed more quickly and more efficiently. The Conservatives should go to greater lengths to ensure, for example, that these people can be reunited with members of their family as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, I have several reservations concerning the content of this bill. For example, I have trouble understanding the reasons for the new discretionary powers being given to the minister. If Bill C-43 were to come into force tomorrow morning, the minister would have the power to declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident if he considers that it is justified by public policy considerations. However, one of the problems with this proposal is that the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. This opens the door to very different interpretations of what may constitute public policy considerations. This must be addressed.

I also have a lot of trouble understanding the presence of a clause that relieves the minister of his responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances associated with the application of a foreign national deemed inadmissible. I would like someone to explain the reason for this measure to me. I do not understand why humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not be taken to consideration in a review. Is that really the Canada that we want?

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that it severely limits access to the appeals process. We all agree that our appeal system must not be exploited in order to deliberately delay the removal of a non-resident to his country of origin, but the measures contained in Bill C-43 should not limit human rights.

The Conservatives have promoted their bill by speaking almost exclusively about the fact that it will speed up the deportation of dangerous offenders. However, Bill C-43 casts a far wider net than that. Among other things, it redefines serious crimes.

Under the present system, an individual who has committed a crime punishable by two years or more has no access to the appeal process. Bill C-43 wants to lower the bar to crimes punishable by six months or more. As a result, a lot more people will be denied the opportunity to appeal a decision made in their case.

Let us be clear. I am not fundamentally opposed to tightening the definition of “serious criminality”.

One benefit would be to take in crimes like sexual assault and robbery, which in itself is a good thing. However, I think we have to be vigilant and make sure the new definition does not lead to poorly thought out decisions.

One thing I am concerned about is what effects the new system of minimum sentences provided in Bill C-10 might have on decisions to be made in removal cases.

Some crimes covered by that new system are non-violent crimes. So we have to be careful when it comes to limiting access to the appeal process. The restriction in the legislation must not be extended too far by Bill C-43. Yes, we have to stop non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. But we also have to be sure that we take an intelligent approach to all of this. We really have to preserve a balance. Most importantly, we have to be able to guarantee that the right decision will be made in each removal case.

The appeal mechanism is a useful tool for that purpose. Why would we take it away? We will have to pay particular attention to this issue once it gets to committee.

So far, we have heard the Conservatives telling us over and over that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit serious crimes. I would hope so, but honestly, in real life, things are not necessarily black and white. We all know that reality is more complex than that. Bill C-43 should be constructed in a way that reflects that complexity.

For example, what do we do with offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who know nothing about the country they are to be deported to? Some organizations have raised concerns on this point, but that is not a factor to be considered under Bill C-43.

In the NDP, we want to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. However, we do not want the mechanisms that make it possible for our system to deal with extraordinary circumstances in a flexible manner to be eliminated.

Like the government, we want our judicial system to be effective and to make it possible for non-citizens who have committed serious crimes to be removed as soon as possible, but we do not want to have botched, unbalanced processes that do not take special situations into account. Wanting to expedite the removal of foreign criminals is a laudable objective in itself, but we have to make sure the process leading to removal does not violate the person’s rights. In our society, we have a duty to make decisions that are just and that recognize everyone’s rights.

Bill C-43 is a bill on which we can and must build. As I said earlier, we will support it at second reading, but we have to rework it. We will all benefit from being able to hear what the experts and representatives of organizations that specialize in these issues have to say.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is, how did we get to this point? I would like to raise three points with the hon. member.

First, let us talk about our involvement on the international stage. In the past, we engaged in cultural outreach with other countries. It was the first point of contact for people in other countries. We showed them our Canadian culture. That was taken away. Then all the resources for integration were taken away, especially the integration of professionals who come here to be part of our society, to work and to build a strong country. Basically, I see this bill as part of a step-by-step agenda that is unfortunately moving us towards an anti-immigration policy.

Can the hon. member give us more details about the New Democrats' vision of immigration issues?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The Conservatives' bill deals with a small minority. They have used a few highly publicized cases in order to introduce a bill that reflects their ideology. That is very unfortunate. As my colleague mentioned, New Democrats want Canada to be seen around the world as a law-abiding country that is open, just and fair. That means having a fair system of appeals for all Canadians, a system that can also accommodate newcomers with problems. That is the kind of Canada that New Democrats want.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my really big concerns about the bill is how it is going to affect youth as well as its consequences on other family members. What happens sometimes with refugees who come here is that if the youth are not busy and active they can often find themselves in cultural shock. Part of the program that I ran was to help mend the fences around the cultural shock.

Alternatively, these youth fall in with other groups and gang activity because they have nothing else. If they are not at school or if they are out of work, they are in a percentage that is highly vulnerable to being influenced by other people, especially when they do not know a new country.

I would like my colleague to examine the issues of vulnerability in the bill related to youth and families, especially when concentrating so much power in the minister's office.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a very important point: integrating new families. We have highly educated newcomers whose credentials are not recognized. I understand that this is a provincial matter, but the federal government could well play a major role.

This destabilizes families. When young children are involved, instability associated with employment and social integration can result in young people ending up in gangs and creating problems for themselves and those around them. That is what must be considered. We must make sure that we integrate newcomers so that they can feel secure in Canada. That is what we want for our Canada.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is more specifically about the consequences of this bill and, more importantly, the language used in it. I would like the hon. member to tell me about her experience in her constituency office and the very human stories she has been told.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Hull—Aylmer, I receive a lot of requests from newcomers.

What I find appalling about this bill is the responsibilities that the minister wants to take. We know very well that when immigration cases are referred to the minister's office, he categorically refuses to get involved. But now he wants to give himself a power without an appeal process, which may affect everyone. I have truly appalling cases in my riding of Hull—Aylmer, where newcomers might need training and integration support, but mainly they need help in the community. But the Conservative budget does not allow for that.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, which we are debating, is a bill amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

First, I would like to say that the New Democrats acknowledge that the judicial process must be effective and flexible when it comes to removing dangerous criminals who are not Canadian citizens.

Canadians want strict measures to be taken against non-citizens who commit serious and often violent offences in our communities. Newcomers, most of whom are law-abiding, would be the first to accept this approach.

What I really like about this bill is the clause that will ensure that entering Canada because of organized criminal activity is not in itself enough for a person to be deemed inadmissible for permanent residency and Canadian citizenship, which is great news for victims of trafficking rings who are anything but criminals.

On the other hand, I find some things in this bill quite disturbing. The first one is the minister’s discretionary power to decide whether or not some people represent a threat to national security and the national interest. In fact, this bill increases the arbitrary powers given to the minister. For example, Bill C-43 gives the minister vast powers that enable him to prevent a foreign national from entering or leaving the country, or declare someone inadmissible based on public policy considerations we think are ambiguous.

We must strengthen the independence of the judicial system, not give the minister the ability to decide who enters and leaves Canada. The last thing our immigration system needs is to be even more politicized.

Canada has an efficient and independent system to determine the admissibility of people into the country. There is no point in replacing it with the whims of a minister. The minister must not be able to prevent people entering the country just because they disagree with the government. It is ridiculous to think that giving the minister more power will solve anything.

Another problem comes from the fact that the provisions of Bill C-43 will apply to people who have been found guilty of serious crimes abroad, as well as in Canada. Canada has one of the world’s best justice systems. Other countries are not so lucky. In many countries, merely belonging to an opposition party may lead to a conviction on serious criminal charges. There is no better illustration of the importance of the rule of law.

We must ensure that Canada remains a country that welcomes and offers hope to people who are fleeing persecution in other lands.

That said, I do think it reasonable to ensure that people guilty of sexual assault or robbery with violence are not running loose on our streets.

In view of the change in the definition of “serious criminality”, the change from the criterion of a two-year sentence to a six-month sentence, and since crimes committed abroad would be considered, the professionals who work with immigrants, refugees and the diasporas have also expressed their concerns that this legislation may unjustly punish young people and the mentally ill.

Therefore, the impact of this provision must be carefully studied to ensure that the measures truly achieve their goal, to prevent dangerous people from entering Canada.

Another thing that disturbs me in this bill—and in the government’s policy in general—is the image of immigrants they have created. The bills are trumpeted as if immigrants were a great threat to the country or as if all immigrants were potential criminals, when almost all immigrants to Canada are people who are seeking a better life and a better future and who, like all other Canadians, want to live in a safe environment.

I am an immigrant. I chose Quebec and Canada to live and raise my family, and I am very happy to be involved in my community in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I made this particular choice because I wanted a safe environment for my family, and I have found it here.

Immigrating is not easy, particularly if you are not coming to join family members who are already here. You have to start from zero. You have to find a place to live, and furnish it. You have to find a school for your children. You have to get your diplomas recognized, and in my case that was a nightmare. Finding a job is also a major challenge. A 2010 study shows that the unemployment rate is four times higher among immigrants with a university diploma than among university graduates born in Canada.

The last thing immigrants need is to be stigmatized and have a “potential criminal” aura, which would make it even more difficult for them to integrate and contribute to society in Quebec and Canada. The government has got to abandon the rhetoric that puts all immigrants in the same basket. People in my riding are already telling me disturbing stories about how they are treated and the perception others may have of them, simply because they have come from somewhere else.

That said, we must not ignore the problems that exist. We simply have to be sure our response is measured. As they say where I come from, you do not use a hammer, or a cannon, to kill a mosquito.

I know we can stop non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal process without denying their rights. We, and the government, have to focus on improving the immigration system so it is faster and fairer for the large majority of people who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.

I would point out again that the very large majority of people who come to Canada are not criminals. They are people who hope to contribute to society and build a better world. More often than not, they are even professionals and highly educated people.

In closing, I want to say that the question of health care for refugees is still an issue and is still important. The government probably wants us to forget the cuts it has made to that program. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with the College of Family Physicians of Canada, who asked me to keep up the fight for health care for refugees. I want to remind the government that we in the NDP are not forgetting this.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to several speeches. What I like is that every NDP member who has spoken has contributed something different to the debate. I thank my colleague for her speech. I especially enjoyed hearing about her experience as an immigrant. She gave us a different perspective on the debate. We look at it from the viewpoint of those who welcome immigrants, but it is also important to hear about the perspective of the people who immigrate to Canada.

I was struck by one aspect of her speech. She talked about the definition of serious criminality and how it is perceived elsewhere. How can we improve this bill for people who are not really criminals? There are also political considerations. How can we improve the definition in order to be fair to people who apply to Canada?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question. He is very familiar with my experience as an immigrant. He knows that after arriving in Canada, I had to fight various battles to get to where I am today.

Unfortunately, this bill would send criminals back to their country of origin. Immigrants have the perception that they are stigmatized, and they believe that other people view them as potential criminals. I would like to clarify that for everyone. As I said, when one immigrates, there is work to be done on both sides: 50% by the host country and 50% by the immigrant. Unfortunately, with certain policies, there is no will to integrate these people, only to stigmatize them.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I cannot begin to count the number of characterizations she has used to talk about how we on this side feel about immigrants. We are not talking about stigmatizing immigrants as criminals. That is complete hogwash.

She talked about not politicizing the process. I will ask her a question about people who are non-political but have an opinion on the process, and they are professional opinions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence are among the many organizations that support Bill C-43.

Does the member and her party support the views of these organizations on this legislation, or would they rather politicize the process and not listen to professionals?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite did not listen to the beginning of my speech. I said that the NDP is in favour of a strict and flexible judicial system.

It makes sense. What is written there and what we are talking about are amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. So if we are not talking about immigrants, who are we talking about?

As an immigrant, I am not defending serious criminals. I am defending immigrants. Even if young people commit minor thefts or other similar crimes, we must not give the minister the discretionary power to decide who is a serious or petty criminal, who is a danger to the country, who must not enter or who must leave.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my comments to the debate.

We have said that we will support sending the bill to committee. Obviously a lot more information is needed. That has come out in the comments already, and I expect will continue for the balance of the afternoon.

As the government has heard, we have some strong feelings about this issue. We have further strong feels and concerns about why the Conservatives do this, the way they do it, the language they use and what their real intentions are. That comes from experience, watching the government in action.

However, we will be fair-minded and even-handed, but we will stand by the principles we believe in on the issue of new Canadians and those who are on the path to become new Canadians.

Let me say parenthetically before I get into the substantive part of my comments, let us recognize again that every jurisdiction in the country, whether it is federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, townships or counties, recognizes that attracting new Canadians to our country is not just a Canadian value, which would be enough for most of us on this side of the House, but it is a necessary component of our ability to move forward and have the kind of economy that will provide the jobs and quality of life that we have come to enjoy, that we want to continue and that we want to make better for our children and our grandchildren.

We need to be the country in the world that everybody else looks to and says, “There is where I want to go. That is the country I want to go to because of the values of the country, the opportunities it would give me”. More than anything, I think it is fair to say most of those people would be thinking that this is where they want their children and grandchildren to be raised, to give them the maximum opportunity. It matters when we have these debates. It matters what language we use, because we send messages when we do that.

For the longest time, for the whole time I have been at the federal order of government, there has been a growing recognition that more and more new Canadians who come here find that the jobs they were told would be here are not, that the profession they were told they could continue in is no longer possible. When they see all the promises that have been made are not real, many of them do not stay.

Far too many are making the decision down the road, after six, 12, 18, 24, 36 months, that Canada is not what they thought it would be, that it is not the dream they thought they would live and they are sending that message back to their home country, to their family members and their friends and their colleagues, those who want to come to Canada because it is the place to be. They are being told that they might just want to slow down a bit because it is not always that way.

That kind of messaging is antithesis of what we need to send out if we are to attract the kind of new Canadians we want to come in here to be a part of our great nation and to help us fulfill and finish the job of building the kind of Canada that we want for our children and our grandchildren. This is the wrong message when we use language like this. The Conservatives love to say, “foreigners, criminals, crack down”.

I lived through eight years of that under Premier Mike Harris. It was the same language, the same hot button politics. It is not a coincidence that up until recently the chief of staff to the Prime Minister was the chief of staff to Mike Harris, or that three of the senior members of this current government were senior members of the Mike Harris government. Therefore, I have seen and heard a lot of this before.

It took a while, but eventually Ontarians got the message and understood what was really going on behind the names of bills that were the opposite of what they really would do, throwing out hot button words, trying to create emotions, moving people by emotion rather than reason. These were all good political ploys, but at the end of the day, Canadians figured it out and when they did, that premier could not face the electorate in the next election. In my opinion he was so unpopular that he had to step down and another fellow stepped in, but people knew by then it was not really just the leader, it was the whole government and the whole approach. Ontarians threw them out, and according to recent polls, they are not looking to bring them back any time soon.

A lot of my concern is about that kind of thing. We will have a lot more time at committee to look into these issues, that is why we sent things to committee. Hopefully we have an intelligent review, bring in experts, let the public hear and read what we read and then make our deliberations and decisions. Canadians can draw their conclusions and decide whether they want to send each of us back here or not.

It will not come as a big shock that my first concern is loading up another minister with even more power. I realize that the concept of benevolent dictator exists and one can only hope, but that is all we are left with is hope. That is not really the way we do things in Canada. Removing checks and balances, making decisions unilaterally, pushing more into the political arena, sometimes these are the right things to do, but we have real concerns about it in this application. Again, that is why we want to send it to committee so we can look at these issues.

Make no mistake, there are many Canadians right now if asked point-blank would they be in favour of giving the Prime Minister's ministers more power, yes or no, some would say yes, but I think the vast majority would, if not say no, would ask why. That is where we are. We are at the why.

I am getting comments and I have some concerns about going down that road overall. However, at committee we will have an opportunity to answer the question of why. What are the reasons the government is giving for wanting increased unilateral powers for the minister to have and do and do they hold up against an examination of the problem they are trying to solve? There are problems everywhere. The solutions, however, can either be appropriate to the problem, or they can be overwhelmingly way over the top, or it can be a nice little fig leaf to put out in front because behind there are other reasons why they want these powers.

All these things are unknown at this point. We are highly suspicious and not just because we are the official opposition, but because we know the Conservatives. However, again, we will send it to committee and have a look at it.

Finally, I would point out it was the whole idea that suddenly someone could be removed without an appeal when they went to a federal prison, but now we will move it down to six months. There is a reason deuce less a day exists. There is a reason some people go to provincial institutions on a sentence of two years less a day and other people are sent to the penitentiary where they will be for many years, possibly decades, possibly the rest of their life. These are two completely different worlds of criminal behaviour. We need to ask the questions and we will. Why is it necessary to make such a dramatic change that results in unilateral action taken against people by removing their right to appeal? Part of the Canadian way is to give people their say, let them have their day in court.

I do not have to time to get into what the Conservatives attempted to do in terms of health care for refugees or the fact that they can bring in foreign workers and pay them 15% less. There are a whole lot of reasons why we have some serious concerns with what has been proposed, but we will support it going to committee. We will roll up our sleeves and do the work. If it is a good idea, we will support it and if it is not, we will take it on with every breath that we have.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by the member for conspiracy theory over there. I know he has strong feelings, and that is great. That is what we need in this place. We have strong feelings, too.

He talked about the hidden real intention of our government. I can say what our real intention is and that is to protect Canadians, Canadians who are born here and Canadians who come here. My friend also talked about taking away appeals. That is not the case at all and he knows that. What we are talking about is limiting the appeals to something less than endless numbers over seven to 10 years.

I will ask my colleague a question. He talked about minor crimes. Nobody is going to be thrown out of Canada or deported for minor crimes. Does he think crimes punishable by at least six months are minor? They consist of assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, break and enter. Does the member think that those kinds of crimes or the people who commit those crimes over and over are minor?

It is not the fact that they are immigrants. It is the fact that they are criminals. Saying that we are stigmatizing immigrants is simply nonsense. It is rhetoric and it is out of place. Does he think those kinds of crimes are minor?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to think the member believes they are minor. Otherwise, he would have a private member's bill in the House that would turn everything into a penitentiary penalty.

The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between speeding and a minor offence for which a person would receive a four to six-month sentence versus someone who has been sent off to a penitentiary for 20 years. There is a distinction there. Yes, we want to have a discussion about whether that should justify that kind of unilateral action. That is the whole point.