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

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, and I particularly enjoyed the examples that he slipped into his speech.

I would like him to comment or provide his opinion to see if he shares a certain vision. Actually, in listening to the debates since this morning, I have the impression that, with Bill C-43, the Conservatives are trying to depict a very simple, if not simplistic, situation: there are good guys and bad guys; it is black or white. But in my distinguished colleague's speech, it seems that there were many shades of grey, in various situations.

It makes me wonder whether this simple situation, if that is what it is, is truly so simple—when he talks, among other things, about the possibility of the minister's reviewing a foreigner's admissibility—when I hear phrases like: “if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations.” It seems to me that, with such phrases, the hon. member is being completely subjective. However, the picture the Conservatives have been painting since this morning, particularly with their examples, is that the situation is simple, black or white, and that is that.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue of putting the public interest at risk is an idea that is not explained in the bill. Then there is the issue of serious criminality.

We will recall that the Conservatives talk about serious criminality in their bill. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth just mentioned the fact that having six marijuana plants would lead to imprisonment of six months or more and that the Conservatives could consider that serious criminality. I am sorry, but in Canada, the vast majority of the population does not consider having six marijuana plants to be a major crime. People expect there to be some tolerance in that respect. In that sense, this bill lacks balance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

I find that this bill really limits the minister's power when it comes to humanitarian circumstances in cases where the best interests of the child are directly involved. The bill provides for a very minor exception in terms of humanitarian circumstances.

Would my colleague agree that there should be more exceptions available to the minister when it comes to exercising his or her powers for humanitarian reasons?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Indeed, the bill takes away the minister's responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances. I have the impression that this bill takes powers away from the minister that we would like him to have, and gives him powers that we do not want him to have

That is why it needs some work. The opposition will participate in good faith in order to achieve the desired goals and to ensure that this bill does not simply serve as a public relations device so the Conservatives can look good.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that Bill C-43 is called the faster removal of foreign criminals act. However, one of the key items in the bill would give the minister the power to declare a person inadmissible for up to 36 months according to whatever public policy consideration he may choose to use. That has nothing to do with reporting people or removing criminals; it is really about something completely different. Is that not very deceiving?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am saying: it is a public relations tactic.

This bill and its provisions could have been included in the huge omnibus bill that was introduced with the budget, since these measures complement the ones it contained.

The Conservatives purposely isolated this bill in order to get some media attention. They wanted to show that they are being tough on crime and tough on criminals. Basically, they could have gotten the same work done in co-operation with the opposition.

I hope we can do that work in the days and weeks to come.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will be sharing my time.

We are supporting this bill's going forward at second reading, with some very strong reservations. As we have seen throughout the debate here today, the reservations speak to a number of issues in the bill that certainly involve moving further than simply the faster removal of foreign criminals

One issue we have great concern about is the concentration of more power in the hands of the minister, giving him the discretionary ability based on public policy considerations to restrict the entrance of foreign nationals, making them inadmissible for up to 36 months.

We have seen the parliamentary secretary stand up and admit that on the face of it, this is very controversial and really needs a lot of work. I think back to what has happened during my time in Parliament and the minister's actions. At his discretion, he refused entrance into Canada of former British MP George Galloway. In a resulting court case, Mr. Galloway challenged the minister over this. The Ontario supreme court came out with a 60-page decision castigating the minister for exercising this authority in that way that excluded Mr. Galloway based on certain political considerations.

Therefore, we really have to be very careful with this. This is treading into an area that has been a minefield in Canada in the past. I think back to the period before the Second World War, when we refused massive numbers of refugees from Eastern Europe because of political considerations, not because they were bad people or criminals who were going to cause a lot of trouble in Canada. No, it was because political factors were taken into consideration. If we are moving back in a direction of looking at political considerations and opening up that door where we have not been for a while, I think it is something we have to look at very carefully.

We are relieving the minister of the responsibility of looking at humanitarian circumstances in these matters, where human beings' lives are being altered irrevocably by the decisions we are making, and not making the minister look at the situation created by the acts of Canadians officials in expelling people from the country. I think that is really not in the Canadian mould. We tend to say that we believe in the sanctity of families, that we believe in the importance of paying careful attention to children, to the kinds of things that tie people together in a particular instance.

To simply say that we are going to relieve the minister of that responsibility needs some definite explanation. Why should the minister not want to have some ability to deal with this? Why should this not be part of his responsibility? When we have an impact upon people's lives, we need to understand that it is our responsibility and that we need to look at those things in the context they are presented. It is not that simple.

One provision that I find very difficult is the proposed increase in the penalty for misrepresentation. We are all MPs here. We all have offices. We all see people coming in, immigrants, landed immigrants, and people who are looking to get their parents or children into the country. The forms can lend themselves to mistakes.

The difference between a mistake and a misrepresentation is sometimes a very narrow line. When it comes to someone's educational qualifications, he or she may say, “I went to school there. I graduated there”. Is that acceptable? Can he or she prove it? Are there other issues that come into the presentation or the information that may need some clarification?

We need to look very hard at what “misrepresentation” means and what it entails. That can be done in committee. How can we define it carefully so we are not simply shutting people who make a mistake out of the country. We have to be very careful with that. It is something that can lead to all kinds of problems for people.

What constitutes “serious criminality?” This is something we have had a good debate on today. Quite obviously, when we move from a sentence of two years down to a sentence of six months, we are moving the bar pretty low. We are taking that bar right down so the ability of someone to get under it will be much more difficult. We really need to understand it. I assume the committee will go through some statistical analysis of what it will mean, what kind of offences have been generated that produce a sentence of six months in contrast to those that would produce sentences of two years.

Certainly, we have all seen people go to prison for six months for fairly minor offences that do not justify the disruption of their family life or taking them away from employer, if they happen to be good employees, doing all of that for something that is criminal but not necessarily of a serious nature. Therefore, the definition really needs work.

It will be interesting to see how it comes back from committee and what happens with the bill, what kinds of amendments and definitions are struck so we can truly understand how this will impact society.

I trust the Conservatives will follow the example the parliamentary secretary set with the one particular passage in the bill that he clearly stated needed work. We need an understanding of the whole bill in a very careful fashion, which can come through committee. After that, we can see whether the bill will be acceptable to this party. I am sure there will be further consideration of that.

These are important issues which are not to be taken lightly. I trust the government will go into that committee with the good intention of really coming to grips with this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have a couple of briefings both with the parliamentary library as well as the minister's office with respect to the bill. I made reference to the fact that if Bill C-43 were to pass, Nelson Mandela's wife would not have been able to have visited Canada during a very interesting time in world history. It was pointed out to me that Mr. Mandela's wife had some issues relating to the law too so that might not necessarily have been a good example. However, one can make reference to Mahatma Gandhi's wife, as she would not have qualified to visit Canada. I thought that was somewhat interesting.

The point is that if this law is passed, it will have a significant impact on individuals to be able to visit Canada, not because of their own personal behaviour but because of the behaviour associated with someone in their family. By doing that, we are denying those individuals the opportunity to visit family in Canada.

Could the member comment on the unfairness of that, especially given that in the same legislation the minister is taking the power to deny someone the ability to come to Canada? There is a bit of a contradiction there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, over the past seven years as an MP, I have seen many people turned down visiting Canada, joining their family here. I had the example of that rather forcefully put to me about a week ago in Yellowknife, when a fellow told me that his grandparents would never get to see their children in Canada. That example speaks to the problem that exists in the immigration system, where we view people with a jaundiced eye when it comes to their motives.

Now we are going to add on another characteristic where a person's entire family will be under scrutiny in order for it visit Canada. We have another piece that will make it more difficult for family reconciliation, or the humanitarian comfort that we seem to want to deny people who come to our country to build the country, to make it a success. We put all these burdens on them. This is one that also deserves great attention.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated one of the points raised by my colleague—the issue of misrepresentation. I think he has identified something very important: there can be a difference between intentional misrepresentation and misrepresentation caused by a mistake. In the case of immigrants, mistakes can arise because the perception of what constitutes a crime is different from one country to another, and from one culture to another. For example, political prisoners may be considered to be common criminals in their country, while we see them as political prisoners.

If he can, I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this aspect that he started to explain.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, once again, “misrepresentation” is a very interesting word. Are we to go in front of a judge to determine whether someone has lied or has simply made a mistake on his or her form? No, it will probably be done by somebody in an embassy in Turkey, for instance, where someone would look at the thing and say that its not correct, that the person did not do that, and that is the end of it. In the experience of it in my office, that is where many of these many misrepresentation issues start and finish.

This concept of increasing the time to five years on an issue that is already a very difficult issue is something we have to deal with very carefully.

In fact, if we were to get some clarity on “misrepresentation” within the bill, that may actually help the situation generally in our country, so we can ensure our embassy staff worldwide are very well-acquainted with understanding the importance of determining the difference between “misrepresentation” and “mistake”.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, agriculture and agri-food; the member for Guelph, agriculture and agri-food; the member for Windsor West, public safety.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address you as Mr. Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to the chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding Bill C-43, which I hope will be addressed in further study at committee. New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. However, this bill seems to extend beyond this and effectively removes some of the required checks and balances within our immigration system.

I have a few concerns with the changes included in Bill C-43. Bill C-43 would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister, giving the minister new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. It would relieve the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances and as well would change what would constitute serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility.

Previously a conviction in Canada with a sentence of two years or more resulted in an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal at the Immigration Appeal Division. Bill C-43, however, would revoke the right to appeal inadmissibility when there would be a conviction of six months or more.

New Democrats have said time and again that we do not support closing the door to an appeal process as it is an essential component of checks and balances in our immigration system.

An appeal process allows officials to make determinations on an individual basis, weighing all the factors to determine if someone should or should not be deported. Further to this, with the government's tough on crime agenda, we have seen a whole slew of crimes receive a mandatory minimum sentence of more than six months. The change from two years to six months merits further study of the offences that would now be included in this.

This concentration of power in the hands of one minister is a trend we continue to see under the government and is a cautionary tale of the direction of our immigration system under a Conservative majority. Granting the minister the power to unilaterally prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on public policy considerations is a vague and broad discretion.

The broad and far-reaching powers given to the minister in Bill C-43 seem to once again go too far and require balance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard at play when it comes to ministerial authority. When convicted foreign criminal, Conrad Black wanted back in Canada, the minister claimed that the matter was handled independently, yet now he wants the power to deport criminals.

Across the country, immigration and health experts have been raising their concerns to the changes in the bill. There are concerns among advocates that the bill runs a risk of deporting offenders who arrive in Canada with their parents at a very young age. Despite Canada being the only home they know and grew up in, we would deport them to a country about which they may know nothing.

Moreover, professionals who work with immigrants and refugees have stated that this new federal legislation unfairly punishes the young and people with mental illness. Bill C-43 has been marketed exclusively on its intent to speed up deportations of serious multiple offenders. However, the devil is in the details and these details merit further study and expert opinion.

What I also find particularly troubling throughout the course of immigration changes the government has introduced is the language that the Conservative government continues to use when speaking about newcomers in our country.

When discussing Bill C-31, refugees who were fleeing war-torn countries to save their lives were continually referred to as “bogus” and “queue jumpers” in need of mandatory detention by the members opposite. Now under Bill C-43, permanent residents are referred as “foreigners”. This term is misleading and wide-sweeping, completely neglecting the fact that permanent residents have spent the majority of their lives in Canada, contributing to our communities and paying taxes.

The majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding citizens who do not commit crimes. Rather than introducing legislation that continues to demonize newcomers, where is the support for newcomers who follow the rules? Why is the government not spending more time ensuring that the majority of newcomers in Canada are being treated fairly and are not waiting three to five years to be reunited with their partners and children? We need a government that acts to help new Canadians reunite with their families and find work that matches their skill set.

The New Democrats look to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process without trampling on rights. We continue to stand with newcomers who want the government to focus on making our immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority who do not commit crimes and follow the rules.

We can allow the systems currently in place, including our immigration tribunal and Canadian judiciary, to do their work or provide them with the necessary resources to do the job effectively rather than trivializing the judicial process and giving the minister the authority to arbitrarily make decisions. I should add, if the minister were serious about improving Canada's immigration and refugee system, he would stop appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

We could also do what the Auditor General has repeatedly recommended and make improvements to the current system and administration of the laws currently in place, including proper training, service standards and quality assurance checks.

Rather than continually portraying newcomers negatively, the government should focus on giving law enforcement the resources it needs to keep us safe from all criminals.

I spent the summer talking to constituents about community safety and social issues in Scarborough. What I heard from constituents were worries and concerns for the need for support and prevention strategies to keep our youth from turning to crime and actions from the federal government to keep our communities safe. At the end of the day, victims were concerned that crimes were being committed in their communities and steps were not being taken to prevent these crimes.

I hope the government will take the concerns raised by experts, myself and my colleagues on this side of the House seriously at the committee level and that it will listen to the experts' warnings about the impacts and consequences of the bill on people with the intention of improvements and upholding rights,.

It is a warning to us all that some of the concerns raised by experts during the study of Bill C-31 are already being realized. Thanks to Bill C-31, all refugee claimants are now banned from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment within one year of receiving a negative answer on their claim. This assessment is used as a second chance to consider whether it is truly safe to send a rejected claimant back to his or her country of origin.

Last week, we learned of a woman from Iran who could face deportation despite new evidence proving that she faces an adultery charge that could, under sharia law, result in her being stoned to death. Although her lawyer obtained new documents to speak to her refugee claim, because of the changes included in Bill C-31, this new evidence cannot be considered by the Canada Border Service Agency officials because of the one-year rule.

I recall hearing this very concern raised, that new evidence can come to light during this one-year period, during the Bill C-31 study at committee. Unfortunately, this concern, along with many others, fell on the deaf ears of our government and were left unaddressed.

I hope that this is not repeated during the study of Bill C-43 in committee, but rather that we listen to the experts and work together to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process while upholding our Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take up the issue of citizenship because it is about priorities.

If we follow the way in which the minister has handled this file since he announced it back in June, he tries to give the impression that if people land in Canada they should hurry up and get their citizenship. He has made it very clear that this is a top priority, even though there is actually a very small percentage of people who would be affected by it.

On the other hand, and this is where the issue of priorities comes up, we have 100,000-plus individuals who are in the system waiting for their citizenship. They have now been waiting a year and a half to two years in order to get their citizenship because they feel good about being here in Canada.

I wonder if the member would comment on that particular priority. The bill is all about citizenship and yet we have a minister who is dragging his feet in terms of getting people their citizenship. Does she see some irony there?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North sat on the immigration committee with me when we studied the backlogs within Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He is right when he says that many permanent residents in Canada are waiting an extra year, two years or even three years in order to have their citizenship applications processed once they have gone through the test.

It is quite ironic that the minister now wants to take on arbitrary powers to deport more people in Canada who are contributing to our communities, to their economic viability, as well as their vibrancy. These people want to become permanent Canadian citizens and yet they do not have the ability to do so as they wait two, three, however many number of years.