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

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative government took power, we inherited a backlog of 800,000 cases and that was growing. We are trying to eliminate the backlog and one of the measures was to eliminate 280,000 foreign skilled workers. In the Conservatives' opinion it is almost inhuman to ask someone to wait seven or eight years for an application to be processed. Therefore, we have given them a better chance through the provincial nominee program and a just-in-time program where they can find a match for their jobs before they immigrate. The process would take less than 18 months or so. These are fairer things that we are doing.

In regard to the member's question about foreign criminals, our job as parliamentarians is to protect the borders of Canada. Our job here is to save taxpayer money. Therefore, “foreign criminal” is a nomenclature that refers to criminals who are not Canadian citizens. The fact that they are permanent residents and have not made that commitment to become Canadian citizens, perhaps they could be described as “foreign”. Therefore, the reason that we refer to them as “foreign criminals” is that they are not Canadian citizens.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the discussion is about newcomers to Canada and the fact that the opposition members seem to believe we are targeting a specific group of people. In fact, newcomers to Canada fall victim to those people who commit criminal acts in Canada and are not Canadian citizens themselves.

Could the parliamentary secretary speak to why the legislation we have put forth from the Conservative side appeals to so many Canadians and newcomers to Canada?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, immigrants come to Canada from all countries and it is unfortunate that there are elements of immigrants who will prey upon people from their home ethnicity because of linguistic difficulty and so on. I cite the case of Chinese immigrant, Mr. Weizhen Tang, who scammed over $60 million from other Chinese immigrants to promise this Ponzi scheme of investment. As I canvassed my community, 60% of which are immigrants, they are all in favour of this bill.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

This bill is very popular among all the Canadians I have spoken to, including the constituents of my riding, Mississauga East—Cooksville, whom I am very proud to represent.

It is difficult for me to understand how it is that the NDP and Liberals can oppose a bill which would help protect the safety and security of Canadians. I am disappointed that they are using amendments to delay and try to prevent the passage of such a necessary and important bill.

The reasons for this bill are strong and, unfortunately, numerous. Many of these criminals go on to commit more crimes while they are allowed to remain Canada.

We have already heard several examples of cases of foreign criminals who were able to delay their deportation. However, the list is so long that I feel it necessary to provide even more just to make it clear these examples are not extreme or rare cases. In fact, since 2007, an average of almost 900 appeals by serious criminals trying to avoid deportation have been made. This number is not insignificant. I would guess that Canadians would be quite shocked by this high number.

Dangerous foreign criminals like Jackie Tran from Vietnam have taken advantage of the endless appeal process under the current system. Despite committing assault with a weapon, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders, conveniently, he was convicted to two years less a day and, accordingly, able to appeal. This violent gangster who terrorized the city of Calgary was able to delay his deportation by an astonishing five years.

There is also the case of Gheorghe Capra from Romania. After being charged with over 60 counts of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstructing a peace officer, among other things, he was also sentenced to two years less a day. He used the endless appeal process to delay his deportation by over five years.

Finally, there is the case of Mr. Balasubramaniam from Sri Lanka. He was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, among other things and sentenced to only 18 months. He was able to delay his deportation by seven years.

The NDP and Liberals have repeated in the House that they do not think that drug trafficking is a serious crime, that they do not think that dangerous foreign criminals should be removed from Canada. However, I am confident in saying that Canadians disagree with the NDP and Liberals.

Canadians do not want people like Jackie Tran walking our streets. Canadians want to feel confident in the integrity of our immigration system. They want the government to put the interests of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals.

I will take a moment here to talk about victims. The NDP and Liberals have used their entire speaking time today to claim that dangerous foreign criminals are victims and that the families of these dangerous foreign criminals are victims. They also claim that a six-month sentence should not result in someone being considered a serious criminal.

Very clearly the NDP and the Liberals are wrong. Innocent Canadians who are killed, sexually assaulted and robbed by these dangerous foreign criminals are the victims and the lives of their family members are forever altered because of these terrible crimes.

I have been clear in my support for Bill C-43. However, what is most telling about the bill is how much support it has received from a wide variety of stakeholders across the country, including police associations, victim rights organizations and immigration lawyers and experts.

Let me just give members a few of many supportive quotes from witnesses when they appeared before the immigration committee.

One of the most compelling witnesses that appeared was immigration lawyer, Julie Taub, who has actually represented foreign criminals in the past. This is what she had to say:

I have represented those who have been found to be criminally inadmissible to Canada, and I have gone to the Immigration Appeal Division to get a stay of removal for them, successfully in almost all cases.... Unfortunately, the majority of the clients I have represented reoffend or they breach their conditions.... I listen to their heart-felt apologies and promises, but time and time again they reoffend and they breach the conditions.

She goes on to say, “I really support this bill because criminals remain in Canada who are not Canadian, and it's almost impossible to deport them. There's no choice with Canadian citizens”.

Another immigration lawyer, Reis Pagtakhan, had this say to say:

The portion of the bill that deserves support is the provision that eliminates the right of permanent residents to appeal removals to the immigration appeal division for sentences of six months or more in prison. While some argue that this would unfairly penalize long-term permanent residents who may be deported for their actions, what is missed in this argument is that the permanent residents who face deportation are criminals. It should be stated that these individuals are not alleged criminals; they are not accused; they are not innocent. They have been convicted of a crime in a court of law.

Members of Parliament should also keep in mind that criminals could avoid deportation by simply being law-abiding. The Criminal Code of Canada is designed to codify what we Canadians view as criminal behaviour. These individuals have chosen the path of criminal behaviour...it is not too much to expect an individual who immigrates to Canada to respect the law. Frankly, it is not too much to expect Canadian-born individuals, such as me, to respect the law. We expect people to respect the law, and that is why we have a criminal justice system. People who break the law face consequences.

The Canadian Police Association president's testimony was also very compelling. He said:

Under the current regime, criminals who are currently serving a sentence of less than two years are eligible to file an appeal to the immigration appeal division. The CPA entirely supports the measures contained within this bill to reduce that time to sentences of less than six months. We also support the new measures that would make it more difficult for criminals,who have been sentenced outside of Canada to access the immigration appeal division.

These are common sense solutions that are necessary to help our members protect their communities. The problem has become that the criminals we catch are becoming increasingly aware of ways to game the system, abusing processes that were put in place with the best of intentions.

The issue for me as a front line officer and what I get from my members is this. I support fair process. It's obviously an important piece of our society and what Canada stands for, but you have to balance the rights of Canadians to live in their homes and not be afraid of being victimized against the rights of people who were convicted of serious criminal offences and whom we see all the time, particularly on the criminal side, continuing to commit offences while they're appealing. I say we shouldn't use Canadians as an experiment.

These are not my words. These are words from individuals who have first-hand, real-life experience with immigration law, with dealing with criminals and victims. They support Bill C-43.

Therefore, the opposition should not take it from me, but should listen to the experts and stop trying to prevent passage of the bill, which would help protect the safety and security of Canadians. I urge it to work with our Conservative government to support the speedy passage of the bill.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the one-thousandth time in this Parliament, let me again put it on the record that the NDP is not opposed to the expeditious deportation of serious criminals, nor do we want serious criminals coming into the country. We will support those measures. Nor am I, as a mother, grandmother and a lifelong teacher, a supporter of drug traffickers. I am getting tired and fed up that every time we question legislation from the government, the government tries to silence our voice by throwing out that we support drugs and child molesters, that we do this and we do that.

We are not here to do popular things all the time. We are here to look at what is a fair process.

We moved an amendment. My question is directly to do with the amendment. That amendment would have codified in legislation the reasons the minister could use to exclude somebody from entering the country. Why did the Conservatives turn down that very reasonable amendment, which was suggested by the minister himself when he came to the committee?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every country has the right to decide who can come into the country and who is inadmissible, either for a short visit or as a permanent resident.

We have the right to protect all Canadians. That is what Canadians expect from us. If there is a reason not to admit a person to Canada, we have the full right to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my comments to what the NDP critic just put on the record.

It is ridiculous for the Conservatives to imply that Liberals would support dangerous criminals. We do support victims. Not only do we support victims of individuals who are permanent residents who commit crimes, but we also support victims of crimes perpetrated by Canadian citizens.

It is not only permanent residents who commit crimes in Canada. I do not know if that is new to the Conservative government, but that is the reality of it.

The bottom line is that we have 1.5 million-plus permanent residents in Canada, and yes, some of them do commit crimes. We want there to be consequences for those crimes, but we also want to ensure there are fair consequences for individuals who are Canadians who commit crimes.

I take exception to the way in which the Conservative government, this Reform-type government, targets immigrants. The Conservatives use the label of foreign criminals. That is a bad thing.

Why do they single out immigrants? Why do they try to give the impression that it is foreign immigrants that commit all the crimes in Canada? That is just not true.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am totally confused. I do not think I understand the question.

I do not know if there is any word in the bill that says all permanent residents should be deported. The bill is aimed at people who are here either visiting or are permanent residents and commit punishable crimes.

In the history of Canada there were thousands, millions of people who came to this country. Law-abiding people came to build the country. I am one of them.

What the hon. member said is absolutely out of context.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the various speeches on this bill and I would like to come back to the crux of the problem.

Wanting to deport dangerous criminals is one thing. However, they have to be caught first, regardless of their status—whether they have Canadians citizenship or not, whether they have a visa, and so on. In order to catch them, whether they belong to a gang or are involved in organized crime, it takes money.

Why does this government want to cut funding for police recruitment? For the Eclipse squad in Montreal, for instance, which specializes in fighting street gangs and violent crime, these cuts will likely cause its demise.

Before they can be deported, they have to be caught first.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does not relate directly to the bill that is being debated. The bill is aimed at people who are convicted of criminal activities.

On the issue the member has raised, of course more can always be done and that is how our government works. We are always working to improve things for law enforcement so we can address the issue of criminal activities.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, which is intended to reform the procedures for removing foreign criminals.

First, this bill provides for faster deportation of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have been convicted of a serious crime in Canada or outside Canada, by denying them access to the Immigration Appeal Division. The bill provides a new definition of the concept of serious criminality, as follows: “crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months”, as compared to the two-year period set out in the present act.

Second, it gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration broader discretion, including the power to agree or refuse to grant a person temporary resident status for a maximum of 36 months for public policy reasons. It is unfortunate that this concept itself is not defined.

Third, it imposes conditions on permanent residence for foreign nationals who have been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security.

And last, the bill seeks to eliminate any duty or ability of the minister to review a humanitarian and compassionate application by a foreign national who is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality.

In its usual spirit of openness, the official opposition wanted to co-operate with all parties and so had supported the bill at second reading. The bill was then sent to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which held nine meetings to study it. At that crucial stage of the legislative process, time allocation was imposed by the Conservatives and the nine amendments proposed by the NDP were unfortunately rejected.

Those amendments related to several points: first, reducing the powers given to the minister, which we consider to be extreme and arbitrary; second, reintroducing reasonable processes into the deportation system; third, excluding conditional sentences of imprisonment from the definition of serious criminality; and fourth, addressing the narrow scope of the questions put to foreign nationals by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. One of our amendments contained recommendations made by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism himself.

The New Democrats wanted to co-operate with the other parties and guarantee speedy deportation of serious criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship. Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not want to work with us so that improvements could be made to this bill.

As a result, at third reading, we are now opposed to this bill in its present format.

In addition to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and representatives of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 16 groups and individuals testified before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Some of that testimony makes it clear that Bill C-43 is flawed. It may have negative repercussions for a category of immigrants who could potentially be subject to removal to a country of origin with which they have few or no cultural or emotional ties.

In addition, those people could find themselves facing dangerous situations when they return to their country of origin, such as arbitrary arrest, persecution or even torture.

In its brief to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Amnesty International said: “Eliminating the possibility of humanitarian relief for these types of people runs afoul of international law. Denying individuals access to this process might result in them being sent to torture...or persecution...”.

Similarly, the print media published analyses concerning the bill we are debating today. I am going to read an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Andrew J. Brouwer that was published in Embassy. “If passed as is, Bill C-43 will have an immediate and serious effect on many refugees and immigrants, and their families. The vast scope of the inadmissibility provisions, combined with the dismantling of the only available legal safeguards, will result in the removal from Canada and exposure to persecution of clearly innocent people—including some who, like Mr. Mandela, should properly be considered human rights heroes.”

Another pitfall in the bill was mentioned by a number of witnesses at committee stage. The problem with serious criminals delaying deportation is there is no coordination whatsoever between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Canada Border Services Agency.

The NDP believes it is essential that the government examine this problem and come up with meaningful solutions, by providing more resources to better train the public servants who work in immigration and to encourage integration of information and monitoring technologies within the public service agencies in question.

This brings me to some more general comments about the impact of this bill. The government is introducing a new bill dealing with immigration, but its approach to the subject is skewed. Instead of focusing on removing criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship, would it not be more logical to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with more resources so that it can arrest those people when they enter Canada? At the risk of repeating myself, when I talk about resources, I mean hiring more front-line officers and improving monitoring techniques and technologies.

What has the government done in this regard? It cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency in the 2012 budget implementation plan. Those irresponsible cuts will have an impact on the security and effectiveness of our borders. This issue is of particular importance to me, because part of the area within my riding is on the border, and these cuts are already being felt.

In conclusion, this government is once again on the wrong track when it comes to immigration reform. A majority of the immigrants Canada takes in every year obey the laws of our country and aspire to prosper in Canadian society. It is the duty of the government to provide appropriate services to newcomers by giving them access to resources that match their needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his very interesting speech.

We have worked together on a number of files somewhat related to the bill before us, but also related to the Conservatives' philosophy and their way of handling our immigration system. The Stanstead border crossing, where there have been some irregularities over the past few months, comes to mind. My colleague is very familiar with that issue.

What is the real issue we should be debating? Does my colleague think that the recent cuts to public safety and border services are catastrophically huge and that they will have a major impact on our legal and immigration systems?

That is not a very hard question to answer. I would like to know what he thinks.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her excellent question.

The porous Compton—Stanstead border has attracted a lot of refugees who have claimed refugee status after being arrested. That is fine, but the ones I am worried about, given repeated cuts to the RCMP and border services, are those who avoid the border crossing entirely, who smuggle weapons or cigarettes or participate in human trafficking and so on. That is what really worries me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to one aspect of the bill that is not talked about very much but is very important. It is in regard to the whole idea of misrepresentation. In Bill C-43 the government would extend from two years to five years the time when people would be able to reapply if there is misrepresentation in their file. The concern is that unfortunately, for a number of reasons, there is unintentional misrepresentation. That is when something occurs and it was not the intent of the applicant to misrepresent whatsoever; or immigration consultants or lawyers might provide bad advice, which is followed.

There is no exemption that allows people with those types of misrepresentations the opportunity to appeal. It would be very important to try to allow for some sort of an appeal for those individuals who unintentionally had misrepresentation or had bad advice from an immigration lawyer, an immigration consultant or a global employment agency that ultimately led to misrepresentation on the application. Would the member agree that the legislation should not extend the time from two years to five years before immigrants would be able to apply because of something of that nature?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question.

Like him, I believe that the right to appeal is an absolutely fundamental part of any legal process. I am therefore inclined to reply that we should ensure a basic right to appeal for all individuals affected by this law and the associated legal process.