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

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals. I am proud to stand in support of the bill and against the opposition amendments that try to gut this important bill.

Over the past few months, the Government of Canada has put forward a number of initiatives aimed at bringing transformational change to the country's immigration system. In doing so, the government has two broad but complementary goals.

First, we aim to foster an immigration system that can fill significant labour shortages across the country and help us meet our economic needs more quickly and efficiently. It is a system designed to give newcomers the best possible chance to succeed.

Second, as we move forward with these changes we are implementing policies that safeguard the integrity and security of our immigration system. I believe that the security and integrity of the immigration system go hand in hand with that system's ability to best serve our society, our economy and our country.

Through Bill C-43 we are fulfilling a longstanding commitment to take action on a problem afflicting our immigration system. Measures in the bill would close some of the loopholes that allow individuals found inadmissible to Canada to remain in the country long after their welcome has worn out.

The government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians. The bill is a strong expression of that commitment. Indeed, the changes proposed in the legislation would increase our ability to protect Canadians from criminal and security threats. At the same time, we are also strengthening our immigration program and facilitating entry for some low-risk visitors. These tough but fair measures would ensure that foreign criminals would not be allowed to endlessly abuse our generosity.

The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants to Canada are honest, hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, and they rightfully expect all Canadians, including all newcomers, to be the same. As a result they, maybe more than those born in Canada, want the government to crack down on criminals and to remove them from our country.

In every culture and community I visit there is strong support for the bill. Canadian families, whether they moved here from another country or were born here, want to feel safe. They want the government to protect their safety and security. Bill C-43 would do just that. Unfortunately, there are many examples of how convicted foreign criminals are delaying their deportation and committing more crimes while they remain in Canada: murderers, drug traffickers and thieves, some of whom are on most-wanted lists.

Let me relate just two out of the countless examples. Geo Wei Wu, born in China, came to Canada as a student and gained permanent residency as a spouse in 1990. Over the next two decades he went on to be convicted of a series of crimes including attempted theft, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, criminal harassment, assault causing bodily harm, break and enter, fraud and the list goes on. He served time for each of these convictions and by 2008 he was found inadmissible and a removal order was issued. Under the current rules he was entitled to appeal the order. The appeal process took almost two and a half years and ultimately failed. Wu's appeal was dismissed. Wu then disappeared after failing to show up for his pre-removal interview. The CBSA posted his information on its wanted website last summer. Just a few weeks ago media reported that he is now wanted by the Peel Regional Police in connection with a kidnapping last year of two men in Mississauga. He is still at large.

Here is another example. Patrick Octaves de Florimonte arrived as a permanent resident from Guyana in 1994. Within two years of his arrival he was convicted of a serious crime, assault with a weapon. Less than a year later he was convicted of two more crimes, theft and possession of a narcotic. Six months later he was convicted once again of assault. Just six more months passed and he already faced yet another conviction, uttering threats. We can already see a pattern here. In December 2005, de Florimonte was convicted of five counts of trafficking in crack cocaine. For this crime he received his first sentence of longer than six months. Shortly after serving his 13-month sentence he was convicted once again of assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

De Florimonte was deported for criminal inadmissibility in October 2006, but he was able to delay his removal when he filed an appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division. His appeal was declared abandoned after he failed to show up for his hearing, but he was then able to reopen his appeal. The IAD automatically dismissed his appeal, but he was able to further delay his removal once again when he asked the Federal Court to review his decision. The court denied his request in March 2011, and in October 2011 when he failed to report for his removal, a warrant was issued for his arrest. That is five years after he was initially ordered deported for criminal inadmissibility.

Under our laws, if foreign nationals are sentenced to six months or more, those individuals are subject to removal, but under the current system they still have access to the Immigration Appeal Division as long as their sentence is less than two years.

Another example among many possible examples is the case of an individual named Jackie Tran, who was born in Vietnam and became a permanent resident in January 1993 when he was 10 years old. By his late teens he had become known to law enforcement officials in Calgary and was first convicted at the age of 19 for cocaine trafficking. We attempted to deport him for six years, yet despite having a long criminal record as a gangster and a major drug trafficker, he had never received a sentence of more than two years less a day. Thanks to repeated appeals, he was able to continuously delay his deportation. He was first ordered deported in April 2004 and was not removed from Canada until March 2010.

Another example would be Gheorghe Capra, who had more than 60 counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and so on. His sentences ranged from two days to two years less a day. He was given a removal order in 2003 and was finally removed in 2009.

Under the current system, too many of these foreign criminals have been able to appeal deportation orders and extend their time in Canada following convictions. Serious criminals sentenced to imprisonment for any time less than two years have been able to delay or permanently set aside their removal orders. Last year alone 250 foreign criminals were able to appeal their deportation. As the president of the Canadian Police Association has said, 850 is too many.

The fact is that the current system needs to be fixed. Bill C-43 would do just that. It would ensure that while foreign criminals receive due process, they do not receive endless process. It would ensure that serious foreign criminals are deported from Canada more quickly, and in doing that it will help protect the safety and security of hard-working, law-abiding Canadians.

I urge the NDP and the Liberals to stop opposing this bill and to work with our Conservative government to ensure Bill C-43's speedy passage.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go on to questions and comments, 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 hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Food Safety; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Rail Transportation.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amused by the Conservatives' patriotic spirit. They love this great country of ours. But this great country of ours, Canada, has a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and abides by fundamental principles. We see that too many arbitrary and discretionary powers are being placed in the hands of ministers. For example, the fundamental right to appeal is a Canadian value that the Conservatives love to brag about to the world.

What about these values? What do the Conservatives have to say about this? All we are asking is that they respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect fundamental justice and not treat refugees like criminals. Is that asking too much?

Are they prepared to abandon and violate the fundamental rights that their ancestors fought for just for the sake of ideology? I would like the member to answer the question.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for Canadians. It is not for criminals.

The fact is that we need to remove criminals from this country for the safety of our country. The former legislation came with a heavy cost. Let us look at this legislation. How much can the taxpayers be expected to pay for the removal of a criminal from this country when it takes six, seven or eight years? That is a very important point. I invite my colleague to support Bill C-43, which will do exactly that. It will remove foreign criminals from the country and will save the Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that is the government's policy, that the Charter of Rights is not for criminals. Whether one is a Canadian or a permanent resident, the Charter of Rights is there to protect all of us who call Canada our home. The member may want to contemplate that last statement.

My question is in regard to misrepresentation, something that I asked the previous speaker. I wonder if the member would acknowledge that there is an unintentional misrepresentation that occurs when someone answers a question, after maybe misinterpreting the question, and it can be very easily illustrated that there was a misinterpretation of the question, or when an immigration lawyer, an immigration consultant or a global employment agency has someone apply and misrepresent themselves.

Those people are now being penalized through Bill C-43 in the sense that instead of a two-year wait, they will now have to wait five years before they can reapply. Does the member believe there is such a thing as unintentional misrepresentation or that there are bad immigration lawyers or consultants, and would that justify having some sort of an exemption for those cases?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am not a lawyer. I am a professional engineer.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. I am doubtful that misrepresentation is the fruit of some bad lawyers. I have a great respect for the law profession. Our bill raises the bar to five years because people should not lie. We will not encourage lying in this country.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Come on.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments.

Quite frankly, I am a little confused about her concerns regarding family members of dictators. She mentioned the families of Augusto Pinochet and other dictators. The problem here is that in the previous Parliament, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois on the opposition side widely criticized the government because we could not stop close family members of the former Tunisian dictator, members of the Trabelsi family, from entering Canada.

This problem stems from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This means that the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not allow us to deny entry into Canada for immediate family members of a dictator, an individual convicted of serious crimes against humanity or terrorism, or a member of organized crime. Those family members can enter Canada.

Finally, we were criticized because family members of Italian mafiosos were allowed to enter Canada. That is why we are introducing this power in Bill C-43: to prevent such people from entering Canada.

Would my colleague not agree that this legislation needs to include such a power, in order to prevent close family members of dictators and members of organized crime from entering Canada?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to my colleague, who as usual has made an excellent speech. I will ask her a more general question, one that I have previously asked in connection with other bills.

The Conservatives are in the habit of introducing bills in reaction to specific situations in time, bills that will subsequently have an impact on all citizens or on the entire group of persons concerned.

In my colleague's opinion, is the right approach for us, as legislators, to amend or introduce new legislation in reaction to specific cases? This is what has happened. Should we not instead promote bills that address broader problems and not simply one, two or four specific cases?

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. I do not want to have to state my view, but I would like to hear what she has to say on that subject.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

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

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

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by wishing you, and through you, all the members of this House a very happy new year. We are all back here in Ottawa assuming our responsibilities after six weeks in our constituencies looking after the people who gave us the right to represent them here.

I am glad for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. As its title implies, this important piece of legislation would expedite the removal of dangerous foreign criminals from Canada, thereby enhancing the safety and security of Canadians.

I simply do not understand how the NDP and Liberals do not support this legislation which is so popular with most Canadians. Even more, I cannot understand why they are trying to delay passage of the bill by introducing this ridiculous amendment.

Everyone in this House is aware of the most well-known aspects of this legislation. Currently, any dangerous foreign criminal can appeal their deportation if they receive a sentence of less than two years and go on to commit further crimes and victimize more Canadians while they remain in Canada. Unfortunately, we have many examples where that has transpired.

Bill C-43 fixes that by taking away the ability of foreign criminals to rely on endless appeals to delay their removal from Canada and stopping them from continuing to terrorize innocent Canadians. There are also other provisions in this bill that help keep those who pose a threat to Canada out.

Members may recall that in October 2011 the Quebec legislature unanimously passed a motion to demand that the federal government refuse entry to Canada of Abdur Raheem Green and of Hamzad Tzortzis, given their hate speech, which is homophobic and minimizes violence against women.

There has also been a lot of media interest in unapologetic hate-mongers like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. This group vehemently accosts gays, lesbians, women, and our brave soldiers in uniform. They have made clear their unapologetic hatred for Canada specifically.

The best rationale for this new provision is simply to take a moment to review what these hate-mongers have said and done. I am sure anyone will quickly agree that these individuals should never be allowed to come into our great country.

For years, immigration ministers have been asked to keep people who promote hatred and violence out of Canada. I think most Canadians assume the immigration minister has this ability. The truth is the minister does not. Unfortunately, under the current system, if someone meets the criteria to enter Canada, there is no mechanism to deny that person entry.

Bill C-43 would change that to ensure that those who pose a risk to Canadians, who spew hate and incite violence, will be barred from entering Canada. This new authority would allow the government to make it clear to these foreign nationals that they are not welcome here, not to travel to Canada and refuse them temporary resident status.

We have been transparent about the guidelines that would be used by the minister, so transparent that the minister tabled the guidelines at the committee and they are posted on the department's website for all Canadians to see. Those who would be barred include anyone who promotes terrorism, violence and criminal activity, as well as foreign nationals from sanctioned countries, or corrupt foreign officials. I think all members of this House can agree that these are common sense and I find it hard to believe anyone would disagree with them. The NDP and Liberals pretend they have concerns with this new provision. In fact, the NDP members liked the guidelines so much they wanted to enshrine them in law.

We worked with the opposition in committee to improve accountability by requiring the immigration minister to report on how often he uses this power and for what reasons. Nevertheless, the NDP and the Liberals oppose the bill, which aims to prevent the entry of dangerous and reckless individuals into Canada.

What is more, Canada lags behind some other countries that already have similar powers in place. In fact, most countries have powers that are much more discretionary than those in Bill C-43. For example, in the U.K., the Home Office has barred the entry of individuals whose presence is considered “not conducive to the public good”.

In Australia, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship has various powers to act personally in the national interest. It is up to the minister to determine whether a decision is warranted. In addition, Australia's immigration law allows for visa refusals based on foreign policy interests if an individual is likely to promote or participate in violence in the community.

In the United States, the Secretary of State may direct a consular officer to refuse a visa if necessary for U.S. foreign policy or security interests. The Secretary of Homeland Security can delegate the authority to immigration officers to revoke a visa. Additionally, the president may restrict the international travel and suspend the entry of certain individuals whose presence would be considered detrimental to the United States.

Here in Canada, gay and lesbian groups and women's groups, among others, have pressed the minister in the past to use such a power. It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals are ignoring these groups by opposing the bill.

Until this legislation becomes law, we will be unable to stop these foreigners from spewing their hateful, misogynistic, minority-hating, bigoted venom on our soil. Bill C-43 would enable the minister to bar such extremists from entering Canada in the future.

The advantage of the new discretionary authority for refusal is that it would be flexible, allowing a case-by-case analysis and quick responses to unpredictable and fast-changing events. It would allow the minister to make a carefully-weighted decision, taking into account the public environment and potential consequences.

Ultimately, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism would be accountable to the House of Commons and Canadians for the decisions made. However, let me make it perfectly clear that this power is intended to be used very sparingly. We anticipate that it would only be used in a handful of exceptional cases each year, where there are no other legal grounds to keep despicable people out of our country.

Among others, immigration lawyer Julie Taube testified that she not only supported the bill but also its new ability to deny entry to those who pose a risk. She said:

This is just a question of hate-mongers.... Anybody wanting to promote hatred in Canada, be it against homosexuals, Jews, women, Muslims, etc.—they should all be barred.

I agree with Julie Taube.

The faster removal of foreign criminals act is common sense legislation. It would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country and make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place.

It is time that the NDP and the Liberals start putting the interests of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals and hate-mongers.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in opposing the amendments put forward to delay the passage of this bill. I urge them to help us speed the passage of the faster removal of foreign criminals act, Bill C-43.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sit across from the hon. member at the immigration committee and always enjoy his comments. It is not very often that I give the government some credit, but here is one situation where, after a considerable number of presentations made at committee, the government was flexible in response to a Liberal amendment, even though it changed the amendment dramatically and put it in the form of an annual report to the House where the minister would have to report on cases in which he had denied someone access to Canada.

There were many presenters but one specific presenter, Barbara Jackman, who is a constitutional lawyer--