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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 27 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-43. Motions Nos. 1 to 27 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 27 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

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

, seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

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

,

seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-43, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 20 on page 2 with the following:

“may not seek to enter or remain in Canada as a”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

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

,

seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-43, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 3 with the following:

“—other than under section 34, 35 or 37 with respect to an adult foreign national—or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada—other than an adult foreign national”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

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

moved:

Motion No. 10

Que le projet de loi C-43 soit modifié par suppression de l'article 11.

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

, seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 4 with the following:

“interests, based on a balance of probabilities;”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 4 with the following:

“or process as they are understood in Canada, based on a balance of probabilities;”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-43, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 4 with the following:

“referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c), based on a balance of probabilities.”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-43, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 5 with the following:

“by a foreign national, declare that the facts established under section 34, paragraphs 35(1)(b)”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-43, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 14 on page 6 with the following:

“declaration, the Minister may take into account considerations including national security, public safety, humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and the best interests of a child directly affected, and, in his or her analysis, is”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-43, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 6 with the following:

“is not detained, an officer may impose on the person any of the conditions referred to in subsection (3), as well as any prescribed conditions.

(5) The conditions imposed under”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-43, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 8 with the following:

“in paragraph 36(1)(b) or (c), other than a crime that was punished in Canada by a conditional sentence under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

(2.1) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2014 unless, before the end of that day, the application of this section is extended by a resolution, passed by both Houses of Parliament, that this section continues to be in force.”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

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

, seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-43, in Clause 38, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 16 the following:

“(3) Sections 5, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 26 cease to have effect at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2015 unless and to the extent to which, before the end of that day, the application of any of those sections is extended by a resolution, passed by both Houses of Parliament, that any of those sections continue to be in force.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the important debate on Bill C-43. The headline of the Toronto Star editorial before Christmas says it about as succinctly as possible when it comes to this legislation. It sums it up: “Conservatives' bill to deport ‘foreign' criminals goes too far”.

As the editorial points out, “Criminals should do their time. No one disputes that”. Neither do I and neither do my New Democrat colleagues. In fact I think we can all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly. The safety of our communities is paramount.

We said from the time this legislation was tabled that we were willing to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process, without trampling on their rights. We remain very concerned, however, that this Conservative bill would concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism without any checks and balances.

With an eye towards compromise, I introduced nine reasonable NDP amendments to the bill at the committee stage to curb the excessive powers of the minister and restore some due process. Unfortunately, they were all rejected by the Conservative Party.

I was especially disappointed that the Conservatives rejected moderate NDP amendments to curb the excessive power the bill gives the minister. They even rejected an amendment that sought to codify into the legislation, word-for-word, the minister's own proposed guidelines for keeping people out of Canada on public policy considerations.

What became clear at committee stage was that New Democrats wanted to work across party lines to ensure the speedy removal of serious non-citizen criminals. But the Conservatives did not want to work with us to make the legislation better. Many witnesses and stakeholders from all sides told us that the real problem with serious criminals delaying deportation is that there is a lack of coordination and resources at Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Numerous auditor generals' reports also confirmed this to be the case. In fact, even a Conservative witness, Mr. James Bisset, told the immigration committee that:

There simply aren't enough enforcement officers in the Canada Border Services Agency to track down some of these very serious cases. They do their best, but there are few resources devoted to that. In the past, the enforcement of immigration has not been something that has been vigorously pursued in the country.

Conservatives members often referenced the case of Clinton Gayle, a dangerous criminal who callously murdered a Toronto police officer, Todd Baylis, while awaiting deportation for other crimes.

However during a federal inquiry into the Clinton Gayle case, associate deputy minister Ian Glen stated, “Quite simply, the system failed”. As to why, he explained that the department's priority at the time was to target unsuccessful refugee claimants who were on the run rather than criminals, because that way the deportation numbers were higher. This is the real problem, and nothing in the legislation before us would address these concerns.

What became clear from witness testimony into Bill C-43 is that this is not a silver bullet when it comes to public safety. We believe that the priority of the government needs to be addressing the lack of training, resources and integration of information and monitoring technologies with the responsible public service agencies.

Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is happening under the Conservative government. The 2012 budget plan announced cuts of $143 million to the Canada Border Services Agency. These reckless cuts are going to have an impact on the safety and efficiency of our borders.

The Conservatives saying this will not have an impact on our front line services is simply wishful thinking. We know that 325 jobs on the front line of border crossings across the country will be cut; intelligence branch of the CBSA has been hard hit, losing 100 positions; and 19 sniffer dog units are being slashed due to budget reductions. This is outrageous and no way to keep Canadians safe from foreign criminals who will now have an easier time getting across our borders.

Canadians want us to stop criminals and terrorists before they arrive in Canada. However, Conservative cuts will mean that Canadian officials will have to try to do the best they can with less.

As I have mentioned, the official opposition's primary concern with this legislation is the arbitrary power it gives the minister. In fact, it seems as if the Minister of Immigration has not seen a problem that cannot be solved by giving him more power. The concern about the overly broad powers to keep people out of Canada on public policy considerations was perhaps best articulated by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in its brief on Bill C-43 to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration:

This vague provision, imbues the Minister with an unacceptable level of discretion in deciding who may be blocked from entering Canada, and politicizes this process.

Even the minister seemed to acknowledge, when he visited the immigration committee, that limits to his power were needed. On October 24 of last year he presented us a set of guidelines, and we took him at his word that he was serious when he said, “the committee may recommend that we codify these guidelines in the bill”. When New Democrats, in good faith, moved to do just that, every single government member rejected it—another modest amendment defeated by the uncompromising majority.

This bill also seeks to limit appeals based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Amnesty International told the committee studying this bill that this section runs afoul of international law and that denying individuals access to this process might result in their being sent to torture or persecution.

New Democrats do not believe that the minister should be relieved of the obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate circumstances, including the best interests of children. We moved reasonable amendments to restore the minister's ability to consider these factors, with a caveat that the minister has reasonable grounds to believe it is justified. Again that was voted down by the other side.

New Democrats also sought to curb some of the harsher provisions that redefine serious criminality and strip permanent Canadian residents of due process rights. Consider a piece in the Ottawa Citizen a few months ago, called “Canada's new exiles”, which details the case of a young Somali man being deported to Mogadishu, one of the most violent and dangerous places on earth, despite having no connection to that troubled city. The piece goes on to point out, as many of our witnesses did, that:

It is not uncommon for immigrants and refugees who arrive as children to assume they are citizens, or never put their mind to the question until the government moves to deport them.

Actually, I had such a conversation with a taxi driver just the other day, who was shocked that he was not a citizen.

Finally, I must articulate to the House what I feel is the most egregious element of the legislation before us. It is a public relations stunt. There is no evidence that criminality is more prevalent among visitors or permanent Canadian residents. In fact, it is quite the opposite. There is little evidence to show that the provisions in this legislation will make Canadian communities any safer. Yet again we find the Conservative government offering solutions to problems that do not exist at the expense of addressing ones that do.

New Democrats know that the vast majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding people who want to build better lives for themselves and their families. I hope that as a Parliament we can move and spend more effort making sure they are treated fairly, have the resources they need and can be reunited with their families. On this side of the House we believe that the minister should focus less on press conferences that negatively portray newcomers and, instead, work with the Minister of Public Safety to make sure border and law enforcement officials have the resources they need to keep us safe from criminals of all backgrounds.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that in 10 minutes the member opposite completely avoided the central premise of the bill, the central proposal, which is to bar a time-consuming appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board for serious convicted foreign criminals?

First of all, the hon. member keeps referring to non-citizens. There is no such term in Canadian law. I do not know who she is talking about. Presumably she is speaking of foreign nationals who have been convicted by a Canadian criminal court of what is deemed a serious crime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—that is to say, with a penal sentence of six months or more.

Why does the hon. member believe that an individual like Jackie Tran, a Vietnamese gangster who was running a drug gang in Calgary that killed several people, should have been able to delay his deportation from Canada for several years by constantly appealing his removal order to the IRB, and in fact managed to delay his removal for six years? Does she not agree with me and, I suspect, virtually all of her constituents that Jackie Tran should have been on a plane the moment his sentence was over?

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

Mr. Speaker, we think everybody should get due process. In bringing up these cases that are unique, real and very harmful, what I want to point out is that the bill does very little to address cases like that. Those are already covered by the current legislation we have in place.

What we are concerned about is that the bill goes too far. When we look at the fact that the minister can exclude people from coming into Canada for public policy reasons that are there at a whim, I think that should get Canadians' serious consideration.

When we think about enforcement and the lack of resources at our borders, that should make Canadians wake up and say that is where we need enforcement.

For us, this legislation goes too far and captures those it was not meant to capture.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is very selective in the way in which he puts things. He says “foreign criminals”. What he is really talking about is 1.5 million plus people who call Canada their home, their permanent residence. That is one thing we need to recognize.

The other thing we need to recognize is that the minister likes to refer to extreme cases. What about the individual who has been living in Canada for 10, 12 or 14 years, graduates from high school and goes with his buddies to the United States and maybe uses false identification in order to get some alcohol served to him? That is the type of individual who the minister would deport. That is the type of individual the minister likes to use as an example, the extremes.

My question to the member is this. Does she believe that the minister is doing a disservice to Canadians by using extreme examples and bringing in legislation so that the public thinks the government is getting tough on foreign criminals, as the minister likes to label it?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to think, when people are granted permanent residency and they come to live in Canada, that we have done our due diligence. Once they come here, then there are certain responsibilities we have as a society as well.

Imagine the case of someone who arrives here with family at the age of one. The family has lived here for quite a number of years but has not applied for Canadian citizenship because they assumed that after a certain number of years they would actually become citizens without going through a process. We have had some of those cases. What is really egregious in this bill is that, if that young man should commit a crime at the age of 19 and receive a minimum sentence of six months, he could be deported without an appeal.

Whenever we talk about foreign criminals we forget that we are talking about families who call Canada their home. We absolutely want to make sure that serious criminals are not in the country. However, we have to have a process that is fair and transparent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with every single point just made by the immigration critic for the official opposition. However, I also believe that if I had been asked the question, which I imagine the Minister of Immigration may ask me, do I not believe that foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes in Canada should not be able to continue to stay here much longer after the deportation order, I would agree with him.

How can I agree with both of them? The essence of my amendments goes to the problem that we have with this legislation, which is that the legislation goes too far. It is overly broad, overly harsh and creates an unlimited discretion that we have not seen in previous immigration acts, allowing the minister, for instance, to deny permanent residency. Thus, someone who is not already in Canada could be denied the chance to come to Canada for a very vague and undefined purpose of public policy reasons.

While I was not a member of the committee, we reviewed the testimony that was given at committee, and the amendments I am putting forward today are drawn from the evidence given at that committee by the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

I am particularly grateful to Professor Donald Galloway of the University of Victoria for his help in preparing these amendments. He is one of the founders of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and recently stood for election in Victoria as a Green Party candidate. I am indebted to him for his help.

What we have with this legislation is a public relations title, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. However, it goes beyond that. The bill would affect people who are not accused or convicted of criminality. It would affect people who are relatives of those who have been deemed inadmissible. For instance, an excellent example of where the bill fails to achieve the proper balance is on the subject of misrepresentation. Under Bill C-43, if someone is found guilty of misrepresentation on their application to come to Canada they are barred for five years. There is no distinction made between deliberate fraud or misrepresentation and the kinds of errors that occur through faulty language skills, such as inadvertent, unintentional misrepresentations.

In the brief time I have been a member of Parliament, I have been exposed to so many immigration cases on behalf of my constituents. I have seen fact sets that I simply would not have imagined occur, but they occur with great regularity. I have Canadian citizens whose child was born in the U.S. and who have come back together and have never got around to sorting out the child's citizenship. These children, for all intents and purposes, are Canadian. However, under Bill C-43, if they run afoul of the law and are convicted of something with a six-month sentence they are going to be inadmissible for further application.

We could see families ripped apart through this legislation. The piece that is missing is the ability to take into account all of the circumstances. One size does not fit all. This legislation makes no distinction, for instance, between conditional sentences, which are given out in the community, usually for lesser offences, and sentences that apply to someone being jailed.

For me personally, and not speaking on behalf of all the organizations that submitted concerns to the committee, the most egregious part of the bill is proposed section 22.1 of the act, because it will give the minister of citizenship and immigration the right to deny temporary resident status for up to three years for what are described as “public policy considerations”. These are not defined. In other words, the public policy considerations are not tied to the public relations title of the bill, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. A public policy consideration could be unlimited, given that it is a matter of the minister's discretion. If there is a public policy that we do not want foreign funded radicals opposing pipelines in Canada, I submit that that would be a class of person that a less reasonable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration than the current one would use in the future to bar people from coming to Canada on a whim.

This goes against the grain of everything this country is about, that we as a country have been enriched by accepting and bringing in a wide range of citizens and residents from all around the world. However, this bill would allow children, for instance, who have been here for their whole lives to be deported for relatively minor offences, without access to appeal. This is simply against what Canada and Canadian citizens want. If it were more properly balanced, I do not think anyone on this side of the House would have a problem with it.

The bill states that those falling under section 34, that is, people who are inadmissible on grounds of security, or on the grounds of human or international rights violations under section 35, or on the grounds of organized criminality under section 37, can no longer apply for compassionate, humanitarian consideration. This would be overly broad. As I mentioned, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta has put forward a number of the kinds of circumstances where we would not, in the normal course of things, imagine that Canada would sweep up people, deport them and deprive them of their opportunity for an appeal.

Those of us on this side of the House who want to see the bill amended want it amended so that it would actually focus the minister's responsibilities and those of law enforcement on the removal of those people who are a legitimate threat to peace and security, people who actually fall under the category of criminality, who have been convicted of offences involving crimes of violence.

This legislation does not have any of those caveats that would allow law enforcement agencies, immigration and citizenship agents, and the minister to make a decision, with compassionate and humanitarian Canadian values at play, that we not uproot a person, a child or teenager, who has lived in this country virtually all their life. He or she may not yet have their citizenship. They are permanent residents or are temporary residents. The permanent residents category is very large in this country for people who have literally been here all their lives, except for perhaps the first six months or two years of life. This legislation does not take into account any of those circumstances in deciding if people can be deported, and they will not have access to ministerial discretion and further appeal.

I mentioned earlier that it would deem people inadmissible if they are related to someone else deemed inadmissible. Family members who want to come to Canada for a visit and who have committed no crime can, under Bill C-43, be told that they cannot come to Canada, even though the inadmissible family member is not travelling with them.

This does not seem to fit any public policy rationale. It appears to exclude people through association. Moreover, given that other family members may be residing in Canada, it would only serve to further punish a family that has already had a family member ruled inadmissible and been removed.

If a person released from detention is subject to inadmissibility on grounds of security, they could be released on condition. Essentially, inadmissibility on security grounds could speak to a whole range of reasons. These are not necessarily identified in this legislation, that is, in what way the person is a security danger.

The mandatory conditions do not really need to be added to the bill because we already have adequate measures under existing legislation to deal with most of the circumstances that would be of concern to Canadians.

In closing, I would ask the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism whether he is not willing, even at this late date, to consider that the bill may be overly broad. I will not say that the bill's purposes are public relations, because I think there will be circumstances in which Canadians will be glad to see some of the provisions of the bill. However, surely, even at this late date, at report stage, we could take on board some amendments in line with the recommendation of so many expert witnesses to ensure that Bill C-43 speaks to Canadian values, speaks to the rule of law and our traditions that people have a right to be heard, that their side of the story gets to be heard. These traditions and rule of law go back to the earliest history of our western civilization. They go back to Magna Carta and we should not ignore them.

Extreme examples can be used by the minister. I will also put forward the example of a child who has been in this country virtually all of his or her life. To remove that child without access to humanitarian or compassionate grounds would go too far.

Surely some of these amendments could be accepted by the Privy Council side of the House.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her constant due diligence. I know it is a particular challenge to effectively be an independent member and yet participate in an informed way in debates on virtually all bills in the House. We all admire her for that even if I do not agree with the substance of her intervention here.

We did consider opposition amendments. The member does not have an opportunity to sit at every committee. However, had she been at the immigration committee during its consideration of Bill C-43, she would have heard a huge number of witnesses supporting the bill in its various aspects.

Let me just address a couple of the points my colleague raised. One was the inadmissibility of family members. In one respect the bill would make it easier for family members of people who are currently inadmissible to come into Canada. If one of the family members is medically inadmissible, currently all members of the family cannot come into Canada. We would end that broad reach of inadmissibility through an amendment in the bill, because we do not think family members should be penalized because of the sickness of one of them.

However, what we are seeking to do on the restrictive side is to render inadmissible family members of those foreign nationals who have committed human or international rights violations or been involved in organized criminality. The member says there is no public policy rationale for this, but in point of fact there is.

In the last Parliament the government was hammered by the opposition for allowing the admission into Canada of close family members of the former Tunisian dictator, Belhassen Trabelsi. There is a reasonable expectation that close family members of a dictator or a mafioso, for example, have profited or benefited from, and are certainly conscious of, the crimes that have been committed. This is one example of where there is a very sound public policy rationale to make sure that the wives and children of dictators, major human rights violators and mafiosi, do not come into Canada. Would the member not agree that is a reasonable public policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has picked the extreme examples, but the terms of this legislation are going to catch quite a lot of other people.

The disallowing of family members visiting the country is overly broad, particularly without giving them the opportunity to establish why they should be considered admissible for a family visit. We know that one person's dictator one day is someone else's best friend the next. I am not suggesting that we want dictators allowed into this country, but many Canadian businesses were doing a lot of business with Colonel Gadhafi and helping out his family members.

I am not suggesting that we open up our immigration system to family members of dictators, but organized criminality as a class, and particularly some of the language that is used here, is overly broad and would not apply to the Colonel Gadhafis of this world or the Trebelsis of this world, but to family members who might have a very clear reason to visit Canada and who should not be deemed inadmissible because another family member has been deemed so.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Conservatives, it would appear to me that they believe that we have no law in this country to stop mafioso or war criminals or international gangbangers coming to Canada, believing that Canada is a place these people have been able to come to. My understanding of our Criminal Code is that we do have laws for that.

Why does my hon. colleague think the Conservatives are hiding behind dictators and war criminals and not addressing the issue--

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No we do not. Not to close family members. That is why we are amending it. You asked us to do that; you asked for the amendment last year.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the poor man over there is nearly hysterical. I would ask my hon. colleague to help calm him down so that we can address the fact that we are also talking about the Conservatives getting a big net so they can scoop up a whole manner of people who have done very small things, and then the Conservatives will get to crow to their base.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to presume to imagine the motives of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration nor of his caucus, but I do think this bill goes too far. Every single public policy expert, every single organization that analyzes the impact of laws on our country, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, organizations that function on a public policy basis, all find this legislation as going too far.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on Bill C-43 and the amendments that are being proposed at this stage.

It is important to recognize that throughout the committee process we listened to a wide variety of presenters, experts and different types of stakeholders. At the end of the day numerous amendments were brought forward. There was a great sense of disappointment from the Liberal Party and, I believe, the other opposition members as well, in regard to the government's refusal to recognize that it has gone too far.

I have had the opportunity outside Ottawa to talk about Bill C-43 and to express the general concerns we have, including the attitude that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the government have toward immigrants. It is not an immigrant friendly government. Going forward we will see the true colours of this Reform-Conservative party unfold, as we have witnessed first-hand in terms of some of the changes that the government has made to immigration programming, the delays a person experiences in being able to acquire citizenship, and in general the manner in which the government portrays refugees in a very negative way. We are now seeing the very negative connotation of 1.5 million-plus permanent residents being labelled as foreigners.

When I think of the amendments at this stage, they are nowhere near as extensive as they could have been had the minister been open to receiving amendments and allowing committee members on the government side to support what I believe were good, solid amendments to the bill by the Liberals and other opposition members. We listened to a number of presenters at committee. I want to comment on a couple of amendments.

Motion No. 25 is a transitional provision that would make the bill retroactive. It would be simply unfair to have Bill C-43 apply to those who commit offences before the bill actually comes into force.

Richard Kurland is an immigration lawyer who comes before the citizenship and immigration committee as a witness on a regular basis. He said:

Imposing, with retroactive effect, the penalty of removal from Canada is incompatible with some of the tenets of our criminal justice system. The sentencing judge did not have the opportunity at the time of sentencing to deal with the individuals, so, ironically, rather than expedite the removal of criminals from Canada, it may well retard that effort, given the legal issues that are raised by the issue of retroactivity.

The Canadian Bar Association stated on that particular point:

The retroactive application of Bill C-43 has the potential to create significant unfairness. Bill C-43’s transitional provisions would deny appeal rights even if the offence or conviction in question was before the amendments, unless the case has been referred to the Immigration Division before the provisions come into force. The timing of the referral is not an equitable basis on which to decide who ought to be stripped of appeal rights. In the course of sentencing, criminal courts take a holistic view of an offender’s circumstances and the consequences of the sentence imposed. The loss of a right to appeal a deportation order is an important and valid consideration for a sentencing court. The retroactive nature of the provisions is particularly harsh for individuals who have received a longer sentence on the basis that they would be allowed to serve their sentences in the community under conditional sentence orders.

Throughout the process, we heard very striking presentations which pointed out many of the mistakes in Bill C-43. It is a flawed piece of legislation. It the minister wanted to do the House a favour, I would suggest that he would seriously look at putting this bill on hold. At the very least, maybe he could allow for a new bill to be brought in to deal with the issues the government chose to ignore at committee. The mistakes are fairly extensive, and that is just referring to the motions that are before us, not to mention the different amendments that were brought forward at committee which we were not able to reintroduce at report stage.

Specifically dealing with other motions, we could talk about deleting clause 8 which would allow for the use of public policy considerations to deny entry. We do not support the minister's ability to determine based on “public policy considerations” an individual's inadmissibility.

If we listen to what the witnesses had to say, Barbara Jackman, a constitutional lawyer stated, “I have no doubt that the public policy grounds will lead to denying people admission on the basis of speech.”

Michael Greene from the Canadian Bar Association stated:

We believe this power is unlimited, unaccountable, un-Canadian, and unnecessary. It doesn't have a place in a free and democratic society that cherishes civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. It's wrong to say that the minister is currently powerless. We have nine different inadmissibilities to Canada. We also have hate crime laws and anti-terrorism laws that specifically target people who promote violence against vulnerable groups in society. People with track records or an intention to engage in hateful rhetoric in Canada are inadmissible under existing immigration laws.

Motion No. 7 would delete clause 9. This clause in Bill C-43 would remove the H and C access for those inadmissible under sections 34, 35 and 37. Again, we do not support the restricted access to humanitarian and compassionate grounds for applications as the process itself does not delay deportation. Witnesses testified that sections 34, 35 and 37 are broadly interpreted by courts. Individuals who may get caught by sections 34, 35 and 37 should be given access to humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Again, individuals like Barb Jackman stated:

What you don't understand, or what I think you need to understand, in terms of that legislation is that for persons for whom there are reasonable grounds to believe they were members of a terrorist organization, or at some point in their youth they may have been involved in street gangs or something like that, and they have grown up and left it behind them, it leaves them without any remedy whatsoever on humanitarian grounds. That is not a piecemeal change to the legislation. That is a fundamental change to our immigration history. From the time we got legislation in 1910 there has always been a broad discretion on the part of the minister or a body like the immigration appeal division to allow people to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in recognition of the fact that hard and fast rules don't fit with the fact that people are human beings. This legislation will mean that for the first time ever there will be classes of people who don't get any kind of discretion, who don't have access to any kind of discretion, who won't have anybody looking at their case. That is so out of keeping with our humanitarian tradition in terms of the way our legislation has always been structured.

Angus Grant, another immigration lawyer, stated:

--the parameters for finding someone inadmissible under sections 34, 35 and 37 are extremely broad. Whereas in criminal law there is the requirement that to find someone guilty we have to establish that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in immigration law we don't even have to find that they have done an act on a balance of probabilities, in other words, a 50% plus 1% chance that the person committed an act that is proscribed by the IRPA. All we have to show is that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual committed an act or was a member of a group that committed an act that is proscribed by the bill.

There is so much more that I could talk about. There were stakeholders and individuals who brought to the table a great deal of background, education and real life experience. They have asked the Conservative government to make changes to Bill C-43 so that we could have better immigration law in Canada. However, the government has chosen to ignore the many amendments, which I believe has ultimately led to the bill that we have before us today being fundamentally flawed.

We appeal to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to do the right thing and start looking seriously at voting in favour of amendments so that we can minimize the flaws in this piece of legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would sincerely like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his forthright opposition to the bill, because nothing could more clearly demonstrate how far removed the Liberal Party has become from the common sense of Canadians on matters of immigration and national security than his opposition.

The member quoted from a wide array of left-wing immigration lawyers who have a stake in the broken status quo. They are the folks who make the appeals.

It is interesting. We have immigration lawyers who, funnily enough, he did not quote, who have done some of these appeals and who agree with the bill. He should know one of them, Reis Pagtakhan, who ran against him for his nomination. He said that the bill deserves support in 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”--like some of the far left lawyers he quoted from, like Barbara Jackman--“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”.

Similarly, Julie Taub said:

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.... I really support this bill because criminals remain in Canada who are not Canadian, and it's almost impossible to deport them.

Why did the member not listen at committee to the victims of violence, to the crime victims organizations, to the immigrant organizations, to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, to the Canadian Police Association, all of whom endorsed this bill? Why did he disregard their pleas for us to deport serious convicted foreign criminals more quickly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's question is flawed on many points.

First and foremost, I would suggest to the minister that I listened to far more hours of debate at the immigration committee than he did to all of the different stakeholders who came before the committee.

Second, his information is flawed. Reis Pagtakhan, the individual he referred to and whom he actually quoted, did not run against me in the nomination. He was a good supporter of mine, but he did not run against me in the nomination.

If he wants me to quote Reis Pagtakhan, because after all he quoted Reis Pagtakhan, I will provide a quote that he gave at committee. Had the minister been there maybe he would have been able to reflect on this particular quote.

In relation to clause 8 and the minister's grab for more power, Reis Pagtakhan stated:

This section is troubling in that the ministerial discretion opens up the possibility of decisions being made without clearer criteria. Canadians are entitled to know what actions could cause a person to be barred from coming to Canada.

That is why I say that just because the minister has said something it does not mean that it is true. Quite often it is not true. That is one of the issues we have to address.

At the end of the day we want to see immigration policy that is well thought out and immigration policy that makes sense. Had the minister actually listened to what was being said at the citizenship and immigration committee, the bill would not be in its current form because amendments would have been passed at the committee stage that would have made the legislation better for all Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration of all members, particularly those of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, for their review of this important legislation, Bill C-43. We have already heard about the number of the amendments proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other statutes proposed here, although I believe there has been a number of mischaracterizations of the bill.

The bill seeks to do three things primarily. First is to make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. These are convicted serious foreign criminals. Second is to make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. Third is to remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada.

There is a number of provisions, the most prominent of which would be the elimination of access to the Immigration Appeal Division for foreign nationals who have been convicted by a Canadian criminal court of what IRPA currently deems “a serious crime”, that is to say a crime which has resulted in a penal sentence of six months or more.

On this point, there has been a lot of obfuscation from the opposition members who have suggested that we will lower the bar for defining what constitutes a serious crime in immigration law. That is completely inaccurate. In 2002, when Parliament adopted the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it decided in its wisdom, under the leadership of a former Liberal government, to define “serious criminality” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a crime that had resulted in a penal sentence of six months or more. That is the law and we would not change the law in that respect. We hear all sorts of completely bizarre, risible scenarios from the opposition about how this would be applied.

The member for Winnipeg North just imagined that Canadians who bought alcohol when they were not of the age of majority in the United States would get a six-month penal sentence in Canada. I do not know what planet he is living on, but that is not an offence in Canada at all and it is certainly not a criminal offence that carries a six-month penal sentence.

We have heard from opposition members that poor, innocent young Canadians who just happen to have six marijuana plans will be caught by police and they will be thrown out of the country pre-emptively because of this. Again, it is an effort by the opposition members to mislead. The criminal offence to which they refer is possession of a substantial amount of narcotics, in that case six marijuana plants, with the intention of trafficking.

Why did Parliament impose a mandatory minimum sentence for possession of six plants with intention for trafficking? It is precisely because that is how the organized drug gangs operate. They get a bunch of people to cultivate relatively small numbers of plants so that in the past if they were caught, they would not have faced a serious penal sanction. Parliament decided to render that a serious crime with a mandatory minimum prison sentence for trafficking drugs to kids. However, anyone who knows anything about actual sentencing practices will realize that a six-month penal sentence is, according to Parliament, quite appropriately a sentence that carries a penal sanction of six months or more.

The opposition members constantly try to diminish the gravity of these offences, but they do not seem to recognize that these offences create victims in Canada. That is why Sharon Rosenfeldt of the Victims of Violence has said:

As an organization that works with victims of violent crimes and their families, we applaud this proposed change. We feel that streamlining the deportation of convicted criminals from Canada will make our country safer. Limiting access to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Immigration Appeal Division, and thus reducing the amount of time that convicted criminals may spend in Canada, is an important proactive step in ensuring the safety of all Canadians.

Similarly, the Canadian Police Association has said that it:

—welcomes the introduction of [this bill]...particularly with respect to the enhanced prohibitions against those who have committed serious crimes abroad from coming to Canada....This legislation will help us by streamlining the procedures necessary to remove individuals who remain at-risk to re-offend.

Similarly, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that it:

—supports the efforts of [this bill] to provide for a more expeditious removal from Canada of foreigners who are convicted of committing serious crimes against Canadians. As well, we support measures to prevent those with a history of committing criminal offenses, or who pose a risk to our society, from entering Canada. The Act will help to make Canadians and those who legitimately enter Canada safer.

Let the record be clear that the opposition is disregarding the voices of victims' rights organizations, our police and those who are charged with keeping our society safe. What the government seeks to do is when foreign nationals have received a serious criminal sentence of six months or more, the CBSA will then issue a removal order against them, an exclusion order, deeming them inadmissible to stay in Canada. They will no longer be able to appeal that to the Immigration Appeals Division as a result of the bill.

In the past, by appealing to the IAD of the Immigration and Refugee Board, that would typically gain foreign criminals about nine months for that appeal to be heard. If that appeal was refused, they would then appeal that negative decision to the Federal Court. Occasionally they would then be able to further appeal the negative decision by the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeals. That takes serious convicted foreign criminals, who have already benefited from due process, including the presumption of innocence in our criminal system, and allows them to delay their deportation for, in that case, two to three years.

That is how Canada ends up with people like Jackie Tran, whom I mentioned before, who was running a Vietnamese drug gang in Calgary. The gang was responsible for the deaths of several people. Like most capos in organized criminal groups, this fellow was too smart to actually pull the trigger, as far as we know. Instead he had other henchmen do that for him. There is no doubt he was in charge. The problem was the police were only able to get him on relatively minor offences, like assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. Because of the current provision in IRPA, which allowed him to appeal his removal order to the IAD for sentences of two years less a day, he managed to delay his removal by six years.

Patrick De Florimonte, a Guyanese national, was found guilty of several criminal offences.

Charges included assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, multiple counts of theft, drug possession, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders. He managed to use these loopholes. which we would close, to delay removal by four and a half years.

Then there is the case of Gheorghe Capra, who had over 60 convictions of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstructing a police officer, failure to comply with court orders. Again, because those sentences were all less than two years, he managed to appeal those and delay deportation for five years. He reoffended and created new victims.

I honestly cannot imagine why any member of this place would want to allow someone like Mr. Capra, who has no right to be in Canada, is not a Canadian citizen and lost through his own volition the privilege of staying in Canada through his criminal recidivism, to continue to delay his removal from Canada and claim new victims.

For example, there is the case of Mr. Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam, who was convicted of assault with a weapon, drug possession, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders. Again, through the same procedures we would close, he managed to delay his removal for seven years.

That clearly demonstrates why the provisions to limit appeals to the IAD are so broadly supported.

Let me address a couple of the other points in the short time available to me. The member from Winnipeg talked about how terrible it was that we would close access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration for certain people. What he failed to mention was that the people we would exclude from H and C consideration would be those who had been found by our legal system to be inadmissible on security grounds for human and international rights violations and for organized criminality.

I will give the House one example. Léon Mugesera was one of the members responsible for inciting the Rwandan genocide that led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. He got to Canada.

When it was learned that he was involved in the genocide, efforts were made to have him deported from Canada, but he delayed his removal by nearly 20 years. I do not think that the vast majority of Canadians feel that a man involved in genocide should have his application considered on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This man had no compassion and did not consider the humanity of the victims in the Rwandan genocide.

And that is why we are supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for going over this legislation, which the opposition still believes is too overarching. As I said earlier, we tried to present very reasonable amendments. We tried to codify and to make the bill more reasonable so we could support it. We believe and are seriously committed to ensuring that serious criminals are deported and kept out of Canada. However, that also requires some investment from the government to border security and all those things.

This new law relieves the minister of the obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate consideration. Is this the kind of Canada we want and why would the government and the minister want to be relieved of considering the best interests of children in possible deportation cases?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not. In fact, children are a consistent principle for consideration by the Canada Border Services Agency in handling removals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister started his comments by using the example that I made reference to in terms of a youth who would come to Immigration Canada maybe at an early age of four to six or whatever age one wanted to put on it, but spent 12 years in Canada. After graduating high school, he would take a trip to the United States with his buddies after graduation and use some false identification to be served alcohol. The minister seemed to be of the same opinion that I was, that this kind of thing happened and it did not justify being denied the opportunity to appeal.

Is the minister prepared at this point to make a very clear statement on this issue? In that situation, which was raised on numerous occasions at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, it will not exist in the sense that there will be no form of any limiting of the rights of that type of a scenario. Could he provide that assurance to the House today? He seemed to imply it relatively strongly in his remarks. Will he take the next step and say that the individuals who made that point in their presentations were wrong in that his legislation would not do that?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the offence of purchasing alcohol is illegal in the United States, it is not a criminal offence in Canada. I have no idea what the member is talking about. This is completely bizarre.

The bill would allow us to deny access to the Immigration Appeal Division for foreign nationals who received a penal sentence in Canada for a serious crime defined under IRPA as a penal sentence of six months or more. I simply do not understand how a misdemeanour in the United States becomes a serious criminal offence in Canada.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to know that it is primarily young Americans who come to Quebec to drink because it is easier for them.

This seems like a great bill and it seems like it will work. I would like to point out one situation and have the minister respond because I know that he loves to name names and cite specific cases.

There is a titled British citizen who got out of prison and, with no difficulty whatsoever, became a Canadian citizen. I am not talking about a young Vietnamese murderer or a person whose appearance we do not approve of. This is a well-dressed billionaire, a respectable man who was knighted by the Queen herself. He had just gotten out of prison when he arrived here.

Will this legislation be applied retroactively to this man?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do not understand the question.

Foreign nationals are ineligible to enter Canada if they have received a serious criminal sentence that would correspond to a sentence of two years or more in Canada.

That said, apart from people convicted of war crimes or human rights violations, anyone can apply for a temporary resident permit to challenge their ineligibility. That is a standard process that is not affected by this bill.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43.

I had a chance this morning to listen to the members in opposition speak to the bill, which also reminded me of the time we spent at committee.

It may not be the most exciting part of our parliamentary responsibilities for the public to watch, but to suggest in any way, shape or form that the bill did not receive a thorough going-over at committee, after serious and significant debate, presentation of amendments, response to those amendments and the clause-by-clause review of each and every piece of the bill, would be incorrect.

To state that opposition members did not have the opportunity to call their fair percentage of representatives and witnesses, that they did not have the opportunity to present their amendments to the bill and that they did not have the opportunity to speak to their amendments to the bill would be, and is, completely incorrect.

I would note the hon. member from the Liberal Party for Winnipeg North did present a number of amendments, one of which we spent a lot of time speaking about and gave due consideration, and we did see an amendment to the bill. It had to do with clause 13, if I could describe it very briefly. The opposition was looking for representation in some report or in some thorough review in the House of Commons of each and every individual who, by the Minister of Immigration, would have been denied entry into the country for specific reasons that obviously relate to Bill C-43.

We took that advice and took back the amendment. We made a significant change to the piece of legislation in clause 13 of Bill C-43 to do exactly what the opposition was concerned about, which was to ensure that the report that is submitted to the House of Commons by the Minister of Immigration, the review that takes place on an annual basis on all of the work that has taken place at the ministry for a given year, be reported and tabled in the House of Commons.

Each and every one of those individuals who will have received a decision based on the minister's interpretation and understanding of the bill, will be printed in that document and will obviously be presented here on the floor of the House of Commons. Members of the opposition asked for transparency, demanded transparency and came to committee expecting transparency. To suggest that we did not listen, respond or make a strong indication and change to the bill in order to represent that position is simply false.

The minister did a good job of defining the three areas upon which the bill is focused: first, to make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country; second, to make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place; and third, in a very positive way, to remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada.

I did not hear anything from the opposition on the third part of that piece in which we now, under the bill, have ensured that those who wish to come to Canada, and barriers have been placed in front of them, will have the opportunity to get here in a much quicker fashion, or to get here at all in some cases.

When I listen to the opposition members talk about the need for an appeal process, no one on this side of the House would ever suggest that an individual should not have a mechanism to appeal. That is just, fair and how our Canadian society approaches issues such as immigration.

At the same time, I listened to what Jacques Shore from Gowlings said. He said:

—I support clause 24, which removes the appeal rights for persons convicted of crimes and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more. This will speed up deportation of those convicted of serious offences. Criminals should not slow down the Canadian justice system by relying on years of appeals and giving them the opportunity to reoffend....

Bill C-43, if passed, could prevent people who have demonstrated track records of blatant lack of respect for our society's cherished values from coming to Canada....

—Bill C-43 is a step in the right direction. It will prevent criminals from taking advantage of our overly generous appeals process.

I did a little review and had a look at what Mr. Shore brought forward to committee. In fact, in 2007, there were 830 appeals. In 2008, there were 954; in 2009, 1,086; in 2010, 849; and in 2011, 564 appeals. On average, since 2007, there have been over 850 appeals annually to the IAD by serious criminals trying to delay their deportation.

As of May 2012, there were 2,747 appeals pending to the IAD on the basis of criminality. That means one of every four appeals to the IAD comes from those who have been convicted of a serious crime and have now used the appeal process, not for reason of defence but for reason of offence. The offence is that they have committed a serious crime and they are using every trick in the book in an attempt to stay here in Canada because they do not want to face the responsibility of a conviction for their crime.

If that is acceptable to the opposition, I understand why they stand here today and oppose the bill. If that is part of the reason they do, that is their right. However, on this side of the House, when we speak about serious crime and those who have taken advantage of the opportunity to come here as permanent residents, this government will stand on behalf of the millions and millions who have come to this country, earned permanent residency, earned Canadian citizenship and have done so in a way that is respectful, shows dignity and allows all of us in Canada to take pride in the immigration system that we should have in this country.

We have also said the legislation will ensure the deportation of foreign criminals will actually take place properly instead of in unjust delay.

The member from Winnipeg brought up questions about what defines serious criminality, at committee and here in the House, and the minister has responded on three separate occasions. The Canadian Police Association has said that while the overwhelming majority of those who come to Canada make a tremendous contribution to our shared communities, there does remain a small minority who flout Canadian law and take advantage of drawn-out proceedings to remain in the country at a risk to public safety.

We heard at committee, from witnesses and from the opposition, that the definition of a serious crime is one that results in a sentence of six months or more. The member from Winnipeg has, on a number of occasions, used an example that the Minister of Immigration has pushed aside as being an improper and, in fact, wrong example.

For the sake of the record, what we spoke about at committee and also what we are speaking about here in the House of Commons as the bill moves forward is moving from serious criminality of two years to serious criminality of six months, in terms of conviction and sentence.

Let me state for the record some examples of offences from actual cases where terms of imprisonment of six months or greater were imposed: assault with a weapon, which resulted in 13 months in jail in one case and two years less a day in jail in another; possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking; sexual assault; breaking and entering; possession of tools of breaking and entering and theft; robbery; multiple counts of forgery; possession of counterfeit mark; possession of instruments to be used to commit forgery; causing death via criminal negligence; manslaughter; and finally, murder.

When we talk about serious crimes, those are the examples that we are referring to. To take up examples that do not even border on the edge of serious criminality is really inexcusable. What that does is it gives the impression that there is something that is not right with the bill, when in fact when you look at the content, each and every clause of the bill, it speaks very significantly and very specifically to what a serious crime is and how an individual, from permanent residency, is forced to at least live through the responsibility of the act they committed.

I will conclude by stating that we went through the bill from one end to the other. We listened when we needed to make a change that makes sense from a legislative perspective. It should have happened years ago, but we now have a bill to ensure that foreign criminals will be removed on an expeditious basis and those who are responsible for those serious crimes will have to serve the sentence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want the parliamentary secretary to speak directly to one clause of the bill which as I mentioned in my speech I find to be the most egregious. It is not tied, as I can see it, in any way, shape, or form to criminality or criminal behaviour. Clause 8, which creates new section 22.1, states:

The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

I have looked through the bill and there is no definition or criteria with respect to “public policy considerations”. Why does this clause stand alone in blocking temporary residents without any connection whatsoever to the various issues that the parliamentary secretary has told us are the driving force of the bill, in other words, criminality? No criminality is mentioned in clause 8 as an exclusion for people coming to Canada.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee spent a great deal of time dealing with proposed section 22.1.

It should be clear that the provision would create a new authority that would allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident where the minister is of the opinion that such a decision is justified on the basis of public policy considerations.

As the member knows, and she has been here long enough to understand, there is the legislative side of how we deal with a particular implementation strategy of a law and there is the regulatory side of a piece of legislation, which supports the clause and which comes into direct implementation when the bill receives royal assent and implementation begins.

I should let the member know and she should understand that while we dealt in great detail with how we would formulate this, the ministry officials, the assistant deputy minister and in fact the deputy minister, indicated that regulations regarding how this piece of legislation would be implemented and carried out would be defined within the regulatory framework that would support this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would provide comment on an issue that was raised quite a bit during the committee hearings. There is a great deal of concern for those individuals who come to Canada at a very early age, at one, two, three years of age. They arrive here as infants and they become a part of our system. They take part in our nursery programs and attend our educational facilities. They might not have been born in Canada, but for all intents and purposes they know no other land but Canada. There is absolutely no exemption whatsoever for these individuals to be given any form of discretionary or compassionate review in regard to what this legislation is going to be implementing.

France and other countries have recognized there is a difference when a two-year-old comes to a country as an immigrant. Why does the government not recognize that there is a difference between a two-year-old and a 35-year-old arriving as immigrants?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say with confidence that if that is what is left as the opposition's offence to this piece of legislation, we stand on pretty good ground on this side of the House.

The member knows we dealt with the issue at committee. We talked about what mechanisms an individual like that would have in terms of the basis of an appeal.

Let us think of the millions of those who have come to our country, as my parents did as very young individuals. They grew up here, were trained here and received an education here and then became citizens of this country.

There is a point at which one has to say enough with the extreme examples and let us get down to what the legislation actually does, how it works for Canadians and how it tells those who want to come to this country that they need to do so on the basis of not committing a crime.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this important bill on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

It is safe to say that dealing with those non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada is essential and something in which we as New Democrats strongly believe. Unfortunately, the bill leaves much to be desired. Bill C-43 misses the mark and fails to address any of the holes with regard to training, allocation of resources and monitoring within the public service agencies that deal with non-citizens. Moreover, the bill would not protect public safety as the Conservatives would like everyone to believe.

Not only is the bill flawed in its content, but it also paints newcomers in a negative light. The bill redefines serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of termination of admissibility. The bill would place increased discretionary powers in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by bluntly removing all necessary checks and balances that are in place.

Newcomers arrive on Canada's shores with the same goal as those who have been living here for generations. They want to build a better life for themselves and their families. The majority of newcomers never break the law, yet the Conservatives would paint with the same brush the few criminals and the many non-violent, non-criminal newcomers who arrive in Canada each year.

Let me be clear. We strongly support the quick removal of violent and dangerous non-citizen criminals.

Unfortunately, Bill C-43 would not succeed in its aims, but rather would give sweeping discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration while completely ignoring much needed training and resources.

A number of people who spoke at committee pointed out that law enforcement agencies and immigration services are severely lacking resources. Our public service employees are lacking the resources to deal with people who do not comply with the current citizenship and immigration regulations and laws. The Conservatives know it is unfair to ask these already overburdened agencies to do more with fewer resources.

The Conservatives also know it is inappropriate to relieve the immigration minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives do not care. What they do care about is ramming through their radical Conservative agenda while hiding from oversight and avoiding accountability. The government has avoided accountability before. We saw it with the F-35s. The Conservatives are not taking responsibility for that fiasco. We also saw it with the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the meat poisoning that happened in Alberta. The government has failed to take responsibility and has failed to account for those serious flaws.

Clearly, the Conservative government's objective is to introduce measures that would contribute to a less transparent and more arbitrary approach to immigration.

As a responsible opposition, we have attempted to restore some vital checks and balances to this bill. We New Democrats have asked the government to work with us. We asked Conservative members at committee stage. In that effort we introduced a number of amendments to work across party lines to make the system better, to deal with violent offenders. However, the Conservatives would not entertain any of the amendments that were offered to them. This has happened not only with respect to this bill but with other bills that have been introduced. The Conservatives continually fail to look at some amendments.

Surely, of the thousands of amendments we have introduced at committee stage and report stage some of them would make sense. The government has failed to take a reasonable approach to our immigration system and other measures that have been put forward in this House. The amendments that were introduced were all rejected in favour of an irresponsible approach with no checks and balances and no accountability.

This is a bill that does not help our communities, nor does it respect our judicial process. Instead, it removes any discretion for a judge to consider the nature of the crime and the context in which it was committed. This includes any potential mental illness of refugees from war-torn countries. One can imagine coming from a war-torn country. Clearly, this bill does not address that.

Safe communities have long been a priority in my constituency of Surrey North and across the country. The objectives in the preamble of this bill make sense. Members can all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should be dealt with quickly. For those reasons the NDP supported the bill at second reading in the hope that the Conservative government would be reasonable and would look at some of the amendments we had to offer to look at ways to improve the system. Yet again, like all the other bills that have come through the House, it has failed to entertain any one of those amendments. Once again we see the Conservatives pushing through their agenda at the expense of new and existing Canadians. This has been pointed out. The so-called foreign criminals, while there are 1.5 million permanent residents, is how these individuals are classified.

It is difficult to understand why the government is paying lip-service to the problem of non-citizen criminals and not addressing the important issue of shortage of resources. It is continuing to make cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, Correctional Service Canada and the RCMP. Basically, while the minister is given more power, those on the front lines are once again being asked to do more with less. Members saw the report from the PBO's office yesterday where more services, front line workers and officers are being cut than at the back end. Clearly, the priorities of the government are not aligned with what needs to be done.

When I talk about priorities, there are constituents of mine who have come into my office wanting to be reunited with their parents and loved ones. They are having to wait six to eight years. Members have seen the long lineups and wait lists in a number of categories. The government has failed to address the wait lists for reuniting families.

I am an immigrant. I came to this country 33 years ago. It was through family reunification that I was able to come to this wonderful country. Now the same system is in place but the wait time is eight years to reunite with loved ones. That is not acceptable.

We believe we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process. We also believe this can be achieved without undermining their rights. Once again, the Conservatives plan to do exactly what they want to do with no regard for the people of this country or the democratic processes by which it should be governed. There is the rule of law.

Members all know what Conservatives do when they do not like rules. They break them or they undermine Parliament to change them. This is exactly what is happening with Bill C-43. We have seen this with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and the omnibus crime bill. If they do not like the rules, they will change them in such a way to drive the Conservative agenda.

In summary, we agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly. However, we cannot ignore the fact that this bill would concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of a minister without the appropriate checks and balances.

My sincere hope is that the Conservatives will take a step back and think about the consequences of painting law-abiding newcomers who arrive in Canada each year with the same tainted brush.

We know that the method by which we go about removing foreign criminals from Canadian soil is flawed. We know it needs to be fixed. Bill C-43 fails to do this and hurts both Canadians and newcomers.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit a certain degree of skepticism about the member's concluding assertion that the NDP knows that the current process for removal of foreign criminals is flawed and must be changed. My skepticism is based on the fact the NDP has not made any proposals, ever, to streamline the process for the removal of convicted foreign criminals.

Second, the member says that the bill somehow undermines the rights of foreign nationals facing removal. Perhaps he could clarify. Does he not understand that the denial of an IAD appeal for someone facing removal for conviction of a serious offence follows all of the normal procedures of a criminal proceeding, where the foreign national is presumed to be innocent, goes before a Canadian court of law and is convicted and sentenced to a serious penal sentence, and of course has appeal rights from that? What more rights does the member think that person should have? Does he think there is a right for foreign criminals to stay in Canada?

Finally, he comments on ministerial authority to exercise negative discretion against people who promote terrorism or hatred, and yet he and most members of the opposition are constantly asking me, as the minister, to exercise uncontrolled positive discretion under the Immigration Act to admit foreign nationals either under temporary resident permits or for permanent resident reasons. Why is he in favour of ministerial discretion for positive discretion, but not negative discretion?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the NDP introduced a number of amendments at committee stage, hoping we could have a balanced approach. There is no doubt on this side of the House how we should deal with people who commit serious crimes, and we would like to work with the Conservatives to that end, to look at serious criminals and deal with them appropriately.

What we do not agree with is this concentration of arbitrary power with the minister to deal with these issues. We were hoping that the Conservatives would have a balanced approach, that they would look at some of the reasonable amendments we offered to make the bill better and make our system a lot better. It certainly is not working right now; some of what is in place is not working. We introduced amendments, but Conservatives clearly did not want to go in a different way from their own agenda.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the bill that is rarely talked about is that the government would now increase from two years to five years a person's ability to apply to immigrate to Canada where there has been an issue regarding misrepresentation. The government has failed to recognize that there is unintentional misrepresentation. There is bad immigration advice, and as a result it is a fairly profound consequence to increase the time from two years to five years before that individual would be able to apply.

At committee we heard examples of cases where there was a great deal of sympathy, that five years would not be proper to give. I wonder if the member could provide comment on that aspect of the legislation.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one of the examples that misses the whole point of how we administer our immigration system. There are a number of other points in the bill that do not address or take into consideration some common sense, yet it gives more power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deal with these issues. Clearly it is not balanced. The bill is basically flawed. It needs a lot of review. We offered that review and pragmatic, practical solutions to address some of those issues that the member for Winnipeg North raised. But again, the Conservatives are bent on pursuing their agenda in a tunnel. That is not addressing the general immigration system in this country.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate today on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

I do want to acknowledge, at the outset, the work done by all members of the parliamentary committee on citizenship and immigration in reviewing this bill in detail, clause by clause.

I also want to acknowledge the tremendous work of two individuals, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the parliamentary secretary, for leading, in my view, what was perhaps the broadest reform of the immigration system in Canada in a positive way and also for their very active participation in this debate, both showing their respect for Parliament. I genuinely appreciate that, and I think all members of the House do as well.

Bill C-43, if implemented, would not only be an important contribution to safeguarding the integrity and security of our immigration system, but it would also enhance the safety and security of all Canadians.

The measures in the bill would close the loopholes that currently allow individuals found inadmissible to Canada to remain in this country long after they have worn out their welcome. These tough but fair measures would ensure that serious foreign criminals would not be allowed to endlessly abuse Canadians' generosity.

There are, unfortunately, countless examples of convicted criminals who have used the endless appeals currently available to delay their deportation for years. I will refresh the memory of this House with respect to one example: the case of Joselito Rabaya Arganda, who came to Canada from the Philippines in 1995.

Arganda was sentenced to two years in prison, in 2007, for a wide variety of crimes, among them forgery, credit card fraud, possession of counterfeit money and possession of goods obtained by crime. These are very serious crimes. In fact, in this example with respect to identity theft and financial crime, this Parliament has taken some action to deal with these crimes because they are as serious as any other type of crimes. These are, in fact, not victimless crimes. People suffered and paid dearly because of Mr. Arganda's crimes.

I would also like to make note that Mr. Arganda's trip to prison was not, unfortunately, a story of rehabilitation and redemption. In fact, it was quite the opposite. When he got out of prison, he returned to his life of crime. He was sentenced again in 2009 for possession of property obtained by crime and for failing to comply with court orders. The following year, he was sentenced for possession of a weapon.

Perhaps the critics of this legislation and those who oppose this legislation need to pause for a moment and ask themselves what that weapon was intended to be used for or for whom it was intended.

Arganda is not just a dangerous foreign criminal but a repeat dangerous foreign criminal, someone whom I suspect anyone of any political stripe on either side of this House would like to see deported immediately and accordingly.

On May 10, 2010, the Immigration and Refugee Board issued a removal order. Under the existing rules, Arganda had no right to appeal because individuals sentenced to two years or more are not eligible to appeal their deportation.

However, this individual managed to find a unique way to get around this. He got the Manitoba Court of Appeal to grant him permission to appeal the previous two-year criminal sentence he received—a sentence he had already served.

To relay what happened next, let me quote from Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck:

If he could get it reduced to two-years-less-a-day retroactively, he would have the right to appeal his deportation. But what court would do that?...That's exactly what...the Manitoba Court of Appeal did.... They reduced the guy's sentence by one day so he could appeal his deportation, even though he had already finished serving his sentence. Madness.

It is time to close these loopholes, stand up for Canadian families and Canadian communities and not stand with dangerous foreign criminals.

I sincerely do not believe that anyone can listen to the details of this case, and others, and not conclude that it is an assault on our immigration system.

Worse yet, it sends a message to the Canadian families we all stand here and represent: that there are two tiers of justice and that dangerous foreign criminals have the lenient end of it.

Perhaps the opposition should carefully consider this legislation. I know it has done so at committee, but it should consider it again and support this bill at report stage and again at third reading.

Under Bill C-43, convicted serious foreign criminals, like the individual mentioned, who were given a sentence of more than six months, as well as those who have committed serious crimes outside Canada, would no longer be able to appeal their deportation before the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This change would help expedite the removal of serious foreign criminals from Canada.

Canadians rightly expect a fair immigration system that is not open to abuse. Bill C-43 contains other measures that would help do exactly that.

For example, foreign nationals who are inadmissible on particularly serious grounds—war crimes, for example—would be barred from accessing a program that is meant for exceptional cases deserving humanitarian and compassionate consideration. This would ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for these dangerous criminals. In fact, in many ways the measures we are debating here today are no-brainers that are long overdue and would close long-standing loopholes in the immigration system. Canadians should never have to be endangered by a dangerous foreign criminal who has exploited our system.

Newspaper columnist Lorne Gunter captured this perfectly when he wrote, several months ago, that Bill C-43 “...is so sensible it will probably surprise most Canadians that the new policy is not already the law of the land”. In that spirit, I urge all colleagues to support these sensible measures and ensure that Bill C-43 passes into law.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, getting policy right in Parliament is not always easy and when we pick an arbitrary number to determine whether individuals are serious criminals is always a question of subjectivity.

In Canadian law, the general historical rule for determining whether something is a serious offence is a sentence of two years or more. If it is a sentence of two years or more, they do federal time; if it is two years or less, they do provincial time. We recognize that there are different levels of services offered, based on which side the sentence is on.

I am curious about the use of the term “serious foreign criminals” for people who get a sentence of six or seven months. Nobody in this House would ever say that a criminal sentence is not serious. Anytime a person is going to prison, obviously that is something that is worthy of sanction. However, in terms of taking permanent residents and deporting them from a country they may have lived in for 20 or 30 years, based on getting a sentence of seven or eight months, is something that is worthy of debate.

Does my hon. colleague have any comment on whether he thinks that moving serious criminality from two years to six months, or keeping six months, is an appropriate demarcation that would result in such consequences like deportation from the country in which someone may have grown up?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a legitimate debate. In my view, the six-month penal sentence is an appropriate time period.

Going back to what the minister said earlier in debate, these are people who are actually convicted of a serious crime. These are people who go through the Canadian legal system, have the presumption of innocence and proceed through the legal system, as other Canadians would, and are convicted at the end of that. The six-month demarcation, in my view, is an appropriate time limit to establish. Beyond that is a serious penal offence that would require the measures that are proposed in this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I posed a question to the minister, and now I have the quote and I wonder if the member might provide a comment. It is in regard to an earlier question. The minister is here and maybe he could also have one of the other members provide comment on it at a later time.

In the committee it was stated:

Using a false or fraudulent document is an offence under section 368 of the Criminal Code carrying a maximum potential penalty of 10 years. A 20-year-old permanent resident who is convicted of using fake identification to get into a bar while visiting in the United States is inadmissible under IRPA for a foreign conviction. It doesn't matter that the U.S. court punished him only with a $200 fine. IRPA section 36(1)(b) does not require any particular sentence, only a foreign conviction.

This would then apply to the story that I made reference to for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Is this particular member prepared to say that this particular statement is wrong?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister and others will want to address the member opposite's question in substance as well.

With respect to this issue, however, I refer back to the point that someone has to be convicted of an offence in Canada and that conviction has to exceed the six-month demarcation. That is the standard that would be used in this legislation, only to the extent that it would affect the appeal process beyond that. So they have gone through the legal system in Canada and I believe that six-month demarcation period would be sufficient for the measures that are in this legislation, which then would restrict the appeal process beyond that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can prevail on my hon. colleague to help me get to the bottom of an earlier answer that I got from the parliamentary secretary.

I think in error the parliamentary secretary misread clause 8 and thought it was a regulatory empowerment clause, which it is not. I trained as a lawyer and know how to do legislative drafting. Clause 8 revises section 22 of the act to give the minister discretion. It is not an empowerment section; it has nothing to do with regulation making.

I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc would agree with me that section 22 stands on its own. It is not about setting out regulations for the rest of the bill. It is a stand-alone section that gives the minister the discretion to refuse temporary residence if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to discretion, the minister pointed out in response to an earlier question by a member that the minister currently has positive discretion and, therefore, the question is why the minister should not exercise negative discretion.

Also, there are public policy criteria, which I know the member opposite will know well, that the minister would use, if this legislation passes, in applying that negative discretion. I reviewed the criteria with the minister directly and I think those criteria are sufficient for guiding this minister or any future minister with respect to the use of that negative discretion.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43. Since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I was there to hear for myself what the witnesses and experts had to say about the problems inherent in this bill.

Some of the measures in this bill are at odds with Canada's international obligations. These measures favour what could be described as the exile of criminals who have permanent resident status, rather than opting for a responsible position towards criminals for the safety of all citizens. Furthermore, certain measures in this bill attack the very foundation of our justice system, which includes a fair trial and the right to appeal. Other measures cast such a wide net that this bill will undoubtedly cover situations that will penalize innocent people, just so the Conservative government can create the illusion of security.

The Conservatives' rhetoric and the measures they are proposing do not promote the principles of justice, prevention and rehabilitation—all important Canadian values that truly guarantee stable and lasting security.

This bill was unfortunately not designed to improve the immigration system, but instead was designed as a smokescreen. All of the Conservatives' material outlining why this bill is needed, including the information on the department's website, is based on five exceptions. The five reasons on the Citizenship and Immigration website for taking away the right to appeal in the removal of foreign criminals are all individual cases. These reasons are not based on sound research and statistics.

Public policy should not be based on a few examples. In the House we pass legislation that is supposed to benefit all Canadians, as well as all people living in Canada.

In addition, in the cases raised by the Conservatives, the act was not the problem: no legislative amendments were needed. The problem was in how the act was enforced and in particular the lack of resources. The real problem is that the government insists on amending legislation without ensuring that peace officers and public servants have the tools to enforce it.

The Conservatives claim that they want to change things with this bill. They should be in contact with the different departments to ensure that the changes will be effective in practice, and they should provide the departments with the proper resources. The Conservatives are trying to ignore all that with this amendment to the act, which is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The Conservatives' cuts and underfunding of public safety are affecting our country's security. I will give two examples of recent cuts. By 2015, huge cuts will have been made to public safety, to the tune of $687.9 million. The Canada Border Services Agency, the Correctional Service of Canada and the RCMP will bear the brunt of those cuts.

Furthermore, there is no money to meet the needs of front-line police officers. The federal government is refusing to renew funding for the Police Officers Recruitment Fund, which was created in 2008. The government supported the fund with $400 million over five years so that the provinces could recruit more front-line police officers. This is having a direct impact on our country's security.

Here is an example of the strange and unfortunate decisions that the minister is making: one of the changes proposed in this bill gives the minister the discretionary power to deny access to foreign nationals for public policy considerations.

This seems a bit political to me and, unfortunately, it is no way to govern for everyone. Even without these exceptional powers, the minister is abusing his authority for partisan reasons. In 2009, for example, even without the powers that the minister is seeking in the bill, the minister denied a British MP for inappropriate reasons.

The Federal Court recognized that the minister made this decision for political reasons. Is it reasonable for him to now ask us to grant him even more power to make such decisions?

The committee proposed nine reasonable amendments. One of them was to include guidelines for ministerial decisions in the bill. It is not surprising that the Conservatives voted against this amendment to include guidelines in the bill. What is really surprising is that the witness who suggested these guidelines to the committee was the minister himself. That is a complete turnaround. It means that this change could potentially occur without Parliament having the right to consider public interest guidelines. One has to wonder about such a situation.

In committee, the minister recognized that the powers granted to him by this bill were excessive unless meaningful criteria were put in place to keep those powers in check. That is why he presented these criteria. Of course, they were reasonable. However, it is not every day that changes are made to determining criteria, such as the risk that a group represents. This is a point that Parliament could have examined but that the minister did not want to include in the bill.

I would like to remind members of a great quote by Benjamin Parker: “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Conservatives do not seem to understand this conventional wisdom, whether we are talking about orange juice, helicopter rides, the use of ministerial websites to announce partisan business or even the introduction of good public policies, which rarely happens these days. The Conservatives are not governing in a way that includes everyone.

When even a Conservative minister's suggestion is rejected solely because it was proposed by the NDP, we see that we are truly dealing with a government that is wilfully blind. It is very strange. The Conservatives are not serious politicians who are truly seeking to improve the bill. As parliamentarians, it is very disappointing for us to be unable to work with them.

The amendments we proposed were well thought out, considered and pertinent. They were based on the evidence given by experts who appeared before the committee. We tried to amend the bill to ensure that it could be implemented effectively, in keeping with the goal of enhancing security and with Canadian law and our values of justice. That seems to have been forgotten in this bill.

In response to an unacceptable amendment of the law, we proposed, for example, an amendment so that people of good faith who make a minor mistake in their application are not treated like dangerous criminals or barred from entering Canada for five years just because of a simple typo in their name or because they failed to list a job they held for a month at the age of 18. Those are the kinds of mistakes that can be made and that will prevent the person from entering Canada for five years. The Conservatives also rejected this amendment without any justification.

The bill reinforces punitive measures without really improving the immigration system or the safety of Canadians, and at the same time attacks our rights and Canadian values. It is truly important to remember that the NDP would like to work with the other parties to ensure the safety of Canadians by taking swift and effective action when non-citizens commit serious crimes. Unfortunately, our offer to collaborate was refused, and I am very disappointed. Consequently, I will not be supporting the bill.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you and everyone else back. This is my first time speaking in this venerable place this year of 2013.

I have a question for her. We often hear, where I am from in Davenport and in Toronto, parents concerned about some of the measures contained in the bill, because of the fact that sometimes young people make the wrong choices and get into a little trouble. Some of these immigrant parents are concerned that because of measures contained in the bill that their youth are at risk of falling within the confines and ultimately being sent back to their home country. This is will create further problems for families. It does not seem like the right way to go about this kind of approach.

Could my colleague speak to the issue of young people and the concerns that have been raised?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport reminded me that this is the first time I have stood in the House this year. Happy new year to everybody. I am very glad to be back.

We heard in committee that there were many people who came to Canada as small children a couple months old or a year old. The only country they know is Canada. They are, for all intents and purposes, Canadians, but have not necessarily become citizens yet.

That is very scary for a person who has grown up in Canada and who may fall into the wrong crowd or make a few mistakes, which is completely normal. If these people have been raised by Canadian society, it is our responsibility to understand that they are not non-Canadians or individuals who are foreigners who we can just deport because they do not have their citizenship yet.

We have to take responsibility for the fact that these people, for all intents and purposes, are Canadian.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, here we go. The NDP has been claiming all along that it knows the current system for removal of foreign criminals is too slow and should be streamlined, but it never supports any specific measure to do so.

Now we have an NDP member saying that foreign nationals who have grown up in Canada should not be subject to deportation if they commit a serious crime. Not only does the NDP oppose our measures to streamline the deportation of convicted serious foreign criminals, it is actually in favour of making it even more difficult or in fact barring the removal from Canada of convicted serious foreign criminals.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway had suggested that under law a serious crime was defined as one that lead to a penal sentence of two years or more. I would point that member and the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to section 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that says, “For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months”.

I just want to clarify. Is the member suggesting that foreign nationals who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence, as defined by the immigration act, should not be deported from Canada?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly and efficiently.

However, we are very concerned that the bill is far too stretching. Did the minister just say “six months”? Did he just admit to that? I do not really consider that serious criminality. For instance, for people who have grown up in Canada and commit crimes that puts them in prison for six months, we need to accept that this is far overreaching and the government has gone too far with its bill this time.

Frankly, we made very reasonable amendments at committee that would have curbed the excessive power and the overreach and would have ensured that we followed judicial process in the country and they were rejected. Had these very reasonable amendments been accepted, we would have been able to support the bill through the House to ensure that Canadians were safer.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to work with the opposition. Therefore, we cannot support the bill.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I do not support the opposition's amendments and do not support the NDP and the Liberals attempt to try to prevent this important legislation from becoming law. I would like to thank the minister for his courage and conviction in ensuring that our immigration policy never puts Canadians at risk.

However, members do not have to take it from me why the bill is necessary. Countless organizations and experts support Bill C-43 and I know Canadians will as well.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members of the House of the important testimony we heard from Mr. Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, in hopes that the NDP and Liberals will listen to the experts, to our law enforcement officials, and stop playing games with the safety and security of Canadians and support the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

Mr. Stamatakis summed up the Canadian Police Association support for Bill C-43 when he stated:

Let me be absolutely clear. Canada as a nation is a stronger country because of immigrants who come here to enrich our communities through a shared culture. Police services across Canada, from Vancouver where I serve as a police constable to Halifax and all points in between, count among our members a number of first and second generation immigrants who serve their adopted country with honour and pride every day, and I'm one of them.

Unfortunately, there are those that come to Canada and choose not to respect and follow our laws. In fact, I was surprised to note, in preparing for my appearance today, that since 2007, according to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, there have been an average of 900 appeals of deportation orders filed per year by serious criminals, over 4,000 in total. Surely, we can agree that our communities would be safer, and our police would be helped by streamlining this process in removing these security concerns as quickly as possible.

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 not my words, but the words of the president of the Canadian Police Association. We are talking about police officers who are in the streets every day, who put their lives on the line to protect and support us, who have real life experience and they support Bill C-43.

Mr. Stamatakis then proceeded to tell us a story, which cannot be repeated enough, of the tragic death of Todd Baylis. Mr. Stamatakis told the story in a way that bears repeating. He said:

On the night of June 16, 1994, Toronto Police Service Constables Todd Baylis and Mike Leone were on foot patrol in a public housing complex on Trethewey Drive in west Toronto when they encountered Jamaican-born Clinton Gayle. Gayle was a 26-year-old veteran drug trafficker who had with him a fully loaded nine millimetre handgun and pockets filled with bags of crack cocaine. Clinton Gayle struck Constable Baylis and attempted to flee the scene. He was caught by the two young Toronto officers and a gun fight erupted. Tragically, Constable Baylis was shot in the head and killed in the line of duty, after only four years' service, leaving behind family, friends, and colleagues who continue to honour his sacrifice.

Unfortunately, this is one of the very real dangers that face our police personnel every day. What makes this case so particularly tragic and why I am here before you today is that this case was entirely preventable, if only the provisions within Bill C-43 were in effect then.

Clinton Gayle had been under a deportation order because of a number of criminal convictions he had on his record for various serious issues such as drugs, weapons, and assault. Despite these convictions, Clinton Gayle had used his time in prison to appeal his deportation order. At the conclusion of his sentence in 1992, he was allowed to go free by an immigration department official after posting a meagre $2,000 bail.

We now know that between 1990 and 1996, the government had made a number of efforts to deport Mr. Gayle, efforts that ultimately proved to be unsuccessful, and that red tape and abuse of the system by a known criminal is what led to the tragic murder of one of our colleagues, Constable Baylis, as well as serious injuries to his partner, Constable Leone.

Todd Baylis' story deserves repeating because it is important that we remember the consequences of having a broken system that puts criminals ahead of victims and law-abiding Canadians, that allows endless appeals for dangerous foreign criminals so they can remain in Canada and use that time to commit more crimes and create more unfortunate victims.

The most important part of Mr. Stamatakis' testimony is that he debunked the ridiculous claim made constantly by the NDP members and Liberals that criminals who has received a sentence of at least six months had not committed crimes that should be considered serious. For example, someone found growing six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking is not a serious criminal. This is what the president of the Police Association had to say:

I think that in this country anybody who receives a custodial sentence of six months would have had to commit a serious crime.

As a front line officer, whether you're talking about a criminal act where innocent citizens in our country are being victimized by violence or other activities like that, or about a white-collar crime, where you have people who are losing life savings and having their entire lives destroyed, where there is a custodial sentence of a duration of six months, I think somebody has committed a serious crime, and I think 800 is too many....Drug trafficking is drug trafficking. We've had police officers who've been either seriously injured or killed on duty or in the line of duty by people who aren't even involved in criminal activity at the time.

I could not agree more with the Canadian Police Association.

What is especially telling, though, is that the NDP members did not ask the representative from the Police Association a single question, not a single one.

Here is a respected senior member of the police force whose organization represents over 50,000 front-line enforcement personnel from across Canada, serving in over 160 difference police services, including police officers from federal, provincial, municipal and first nations police organizations, with probably more expertise on the bill and the issues surrounding it than any other stakeholder the committee hears, yet the NDP members did not ask a single question.

It shows yet again that unfortunately the NDP will not listen to Canadians, will not listen to the experts and will continue to put the rights of criminals ahead of victims and of law abiding Canadians.

I urge the NDP members and the Liberals today to listen to organizations like the Canadian Police Association and stop using amendments to try to prevent the bill from becoming law. I implore the opposition to work with our Conservative government to ensure the speedy passage of the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the example of the member is fundamentally flawed. Let me share with him an email that I received and summarily presented before the committee. It makes reference to his case. It makes reference to what the minister had said earlier during the day on a CBC Morning interview, and that was what ultimately led to this email. It states:

Referring to the minister, he specifically cites the cases of Clinton Gayle, 1991 to 1994, and the two B.C. street racers, that would be Bhalru and Khosa, and claimed that these were both cases where the foreigners appealed deportation orders and committed further crimes in the interim. The minister is wrong. Gayle did appeal the deportation order, yes, but lost. The Immigration Department then lost his file and then failed to get the travel document. Gayle was not removed and he subsequently killed Officer Baylis. The department, not the appeal division, was sued by the police force for their negligence, and the department settled the suit. The reason Gayle remained in Canada was because of the department. It was not the appeal division.

Maybe the member would want to comment on that?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says everybody is seriously flawed when he asks a question. What is not seriously flawed that Clinton Gayle killed a police officer, and that is the bottom line.

I can cite other cases. Jackie Tran from Vietnam was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession, failure to comply with court orders, sentences ranging from $100 fine to two years less a day of imprisonment. Did he appeal? Absolutely. The removal order was given in April 2004 and he was finally removed in March 2010, nearly six years of delay while this guy was on the streets committing further crimes against innocent Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the very pointed angle from my colleague, who is also a member of the citizenship and immigration committee and knows that from witness after expert after lawyer after refugee expert, we heard how the bill was not appropriate, that the bill was possibly unconstitutional, that the bill could put so much extra power in the hands of the minister, one person, rather than a tribunal or board.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about the fact that the bill would concentrate an excessive amount of power in the hands of one minister within the cabinet?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is entirely appropriate because, at the end of the day, it safeguards honest, hardworking Canadians from foreign criminals who threaten their livelihood and lives.

The member is also on the immigration committee and had an opportunity to question the police witnesses, and yet no questions were put to those expert witnesses at that time.

The bill would do three things: it would make it easier, make it harder, and remove barriers. It would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. It would make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. It would remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada and take advantage of all this country has to offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

Sitting on the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration is certainly a privilege and responsibility that I take very seriously. Immigration issues are the number one issue that constituents in the fantastic riding of Scarborough—Rouge River come to me my office about when looking for assistance and support. They are concerned with the direction of Canada's immigration policy as well as the priorities of the government when it comes to immigration.

The citizenship application process in this country can take over three years. Some families are waiting four years or more to be reunited with their loved ones and visitor visas continue to be denied without a reasonable explanation. The residents of Scarborough—Rouge River are looking for action from the government on these problems.

Since the vast majority of newcomers to Canada are actually law-abiding people who want to build a better life for themselves and their families, the Conservatives should be making a greater effort to ensure that they are treated fairly, have the resources they need and can be reunited with their families.

It is clear to me that it is the New Democrats who stand with newcomers and who want the government to focus on making the immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority of people who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.That is what my constituents are asking for.

During the study of Bill C-43, committee members were able to hear hours of expert testimony. We all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly. However, the NDP, along with many of the witnesses who came to speak on the bill, had some serious concerns with what the government was proposing. Lawyers, front-line service workers and policy experts all had a lot to say about the bill. It is disappointing that their concerns are not reflected in the bill now back before the House. New Democrats wanted to work across party lines to ensure the speedy removal of serious non-citizen criminals. Disappointingly, the Conservatives did not want to work with us to make this legislation better.

A particular concern of ours is the extraordinary discretionary powers given to the minister in this bill without any checks and balances. Bill C-43 concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by giving him or her a new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. The minister can declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months “if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”. The minister may also at any time revoke or shorten the effective period of a declaration of inadmissibility—but public policy considerations are never spelled out for us or defined. Bill C-43 relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian concerns. It also gives the minister a new discretionary authority to provide an exception for a family member of a foreign national who is inadmissible.

It was extremely disappointing that the Conservatives rejected the reasonable NDP amendments that addressed this chief concern and would limit the excessive new power the bill gives to the minister. The NDP moved an amendment that would have enshrined the minister's own proposed guidelines, word for word, on negative ministerial discretion into Bill C-43. Even that was rejected, despite the fact the minister himself suggested to the committee that we look at such an approach.

Another concern of witnesses and the NDP with the bill was the loss of the right of appeal. Previously, a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two years or more constituted an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right of appeal at the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB. Bill C-43 would revoke the right to appeal a determination of inadmissibility where there is a conviction of six months or more. The bill would remove any discretion of a judge to consider the nature of the crime and the context in which it was committed, including potential mental illness in refugees from war-torn countries.

We need to have a fair, transparent and impartial process to review removals and take into consideration individual circumstances. 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.

In addition, we heard from numerous witnesses who argued that this bill casts too wide a net. As one expert argued:

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....

We were also warned that the bill would have a serious impact on the young and people with mental health issues. In committee the New Democrats introduced nine reasonable amendments to this bill, taking into account the concerns of the experts who testified, in order to curb the excessive powers of the minister and to restore some due process. Yet these were all rejected by the Conservative majority on committee.

We support the principle of removing dangerous, violent non-citizen criminals in a timely manner, which is why we introduced reasonable, moderate amendments that would have made the legislation fairer. Unfortunately, once again, these were rejected by the Conservatives on the committee.

New Democrats want to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process, but to do so without trampling the rights of the innocent. I would add that rather than tabling legislation that portrays newcomers negatively, the government should focus on giving border and law enforcement officials the proper resources they need to keep Canadians safe from criminals of all backgrounds. We need to stop criminals and terrorists before they arrive in Canada. However, the Conservatives' cuts will mean that Canadian officials will have to do the best they can with less.

The 2012 budget plan announced cuts of $143 million to the Canada Border Services Agency. These reckless cuts are certainly going to have an impact on the safety and efficiency of our borders. Members know, from the customs and immigration unit, that 325 jobs on the front line at border crossings across the country will be cut. The intelligence branch of the CBSA has been hard hit, losing 100 positions, and 19 sniffer dog units are being slashed due to the budget cuts.

In addition, the government needs to address the lack of training, resources, and integration of information and monitoring technologies within the responsible public service agencies. These are not my own recommendations, but have been repeated by the Auditor General for years.

We should focus on making improvements to the current system and administration of laws currently in place, including proper training, service standards, quality assurances, and checks to improve our Canadian border security and public safety.

Members have just returned from their constituencies. I always enjoy speaking with constituents and sharing in community events throughout Scarborough, a great and dynamic community. However, community safety and well-being are on the minds of constituents. The constituents of Scarborough are looking for leadership on these issues, including support and prevention strategies to keep our communities safe. Instead we are being subject to a huge, $687.9 million cut to public safety by 2015, the bulk of which will fall on the Canada Border Services Agency, at $143 million; the Correctional Service Canada, at $295.4 million; and the RCMP, at $195.2 million.

Proper training and resources are certainly ways to increase border security and public safety. The government needs to stop criminals and terrorists before they arrive in Canada. However, thanks to Conservative cuts, Canadian officials have to try to do the best they can with less and less.

The government needs to start listening to Canadians. It needs to listen to newcomers, who have repeatedly said they want a faster and fairer immigration system, not a process that may be beyond recognition once the government is finished with it, given the current direction the immigration minister and the Conservatives are taking immigration policy in this country.

In this bill alone there is a system that concentrates power in the hands of the minister and removes appropriate checks and balances; negatively portrays newcomers; calls permanent residents foreigners when in reality they are residents of our communities who work, pay taxes and raise their families here in our country and communities; and relieves the minister from taking into account humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

New Democrats had hoped to be able to work together to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process, without trampling on people's rights but upholding our Canadian values. Regrettably, this was rejected by the government. That is why we cannot support this bill.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River said there should be an appeals process before serious convicted foreign criminals are deported from Canada. Is she not aware that there is an appeals process in the criminal justice system? A Canadian citizen or a foreign national who is charged with an offence can go before a Canadian criminal court. If found guilty, they can appeal that conviction. In fact, they can also, in most cases, appeal the sentence. Does she not understand there already is an appeal in the criminal process?

The second question I have is for the hon. member who spoke just before the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who spoke earlier said that the current definition of a serious crime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is one involving a sentence of at least six months. She said that that was inappropriate, that it was too harsh.

Her colleague said that six months was too high a bar for a sentence leading to the deportation of a foreign criminal. Does she agree? Does she think we should raise the bar from six months for triggering the deportation of foreign nationals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for being here and participating in this dialogue, because his Conservative colleagues at committee were absolutely not interested in dealing with the issues before us, with what immigration experts, refugee rights lawyers, and mental health professionals testified at committee about their real life experiences with newcomers to this country, refugee appellants and people who come here to start a new life.

At committee the minister's colleagues did not really want to hear what witnesses had to say, but wanted to push forward with their own agenda. That is clearly what happened when the NDP, time and time again, brought forward reasonable amendments to address the concerns the minister raised at committee. Yet, I guess under his guidance, the parliamentary secretary and the rest of his Conservative team chose to vote against him and all of the reasonable changes we put forward at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the fact this legislation would break up families quite significantly. There could be a family where one person is being deported because of an action. Such an action does not have to be one where that person is sentenced to jail, but could be a conditional sentence. Say a happily married father of three who has been in Canada for 15 or 20 years falls on the wrong side of the law on one occasion and gets a six month conditional sentence. That person would have to be deported without access to appeal.

Would the member comment on the destructive force this legislation potentially could have on families who are permanent residents in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and the work he does at the immigration committee. He is absolutely right when he says that the bill has the real potential of breaking up families. The example he gave is very real.

There could be cases where someone has immigrated to this country and is a permanent resident or refugee claimant, whatever it may be, and starts an entire family here but gets caught for a minor misdemeanour, resulting in a sentence of six months. That person could be deported if he is not a citizen of this country.

Another example could be that of a woman who, as a young teenager, handed out leaflets on a topic deemed inappropriate under public policy considerations, and who would be deported as a result from Canada. When sent back to her home country, she could be killed because she had distributed those flyers as a young teen.

In short, we could be splitting families but also sending innocent people to be killed.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced a number of abuses of the immigration system, how the deportation process has been abused and the need, with which we concur, to improve the immigration system to ensure that serious criminals should not enjoy sanctuary in Canada and to provide necessary security for Canadians. All these are matters in which the House can concur.

However, Bill C-43 purports to address serious foreign criminality, which in fact is the aim of the parent bill, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, some of the provisions of Bill C-43 continue to remain troubling and some, in fact, may well contravene the charter. My colleague from Winnipeg North has suggested amendments, which I trust will enjoy support from all in this place.

My remarks this morning will first address some of the specific concerns with Bill C-43, including charter concerns. Second, and not unrelated, I will raise the question of why no report of charter inconsistency has yet been tabled by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to the exigencies of section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act.

Before turning to these considerations there are two troubling situations from last year that warrant mention at the outset. In both cases a young permanent Canadian resident was deported to a war-torn, impoverished country. As these two young men were alone and unable to speak the local language, they were susceptible to the many criminal terrorist organizations in that country, Somalia, that prey on vulnerable youth. Indeed, in one of the cases the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Canada jeopardized the right to life of the young man in question and was therefore in violation of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These two young permanent residents of Canada, Saeed Jama and Jama Warsame, though they had been here since childhood, had indeed committed offences, mostly drug related, and as such deportation proceedings were initiated against them following their convictions. That is as it should be. When non-citizens commit crimes in Canada deportation is a reasonable option. However, I offer the case of Mr. Jama and Mr. Warsame to illustrate the perspective nuances and complicating factors that might arise in deportation cases and to underline the importance of due process and the right to appeal deportation orders, not only in matters of the criminal processes the minister has rightly mentioned and referenced but notably on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

As we seek, quite rightly, to streamline our immigration and deportation processes it is critical to ensure that humanitarian and compassionate considerations, as well as charter rights to security of the person and fundamentals of due process are not marginalized in the name of short-run expediency. Regrettably, the effect of the bill before us does precisely that. First, it reduces the threshold at which a conviction results in automatic deportation with no possibility of appeal from a sentence of two years to a sentence of six months.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has defended this change by arguing that judges have been issuing sentences of two years less a day in order to circumvent the statute. In fact, judges issue such sentences because two years is the dividing line between federal and provincial incarceration. Canadian citizens regularly receive sentences of two years less a day, thus demonstrating that immigration status is patently not the reason for such sentencing.

Furthermore, if the government is so concerned about sentences of two years less a day, why is it no less concerned about sentences of six months less a day? The standard should not be any arbitrary number of months but rather the qualitative seriousness of the offence. This brings me to the point that has been noted in prior debate on the bill. Many of the offences that result in six month sentences in no way justify automatic deportation with no possibility of appeal.

Bill C-43 would establish a situation where a person could be brought here as an infant, be raised here, be as much a Canadian as the rest of us and then be automatically expelled without due process for making a recording in a movie theatre or, since the coming into force of Bill C-10, for possessing six marijuana plants. At a time when the government is intent on ushering in new and longer mandatory minimum sentences with respect to new offences, it can hardly be said about the Canadian justice system that there is necessarily a correlation between the length of a sentence and the seriousness, let alone the serious criminality, of the offence.

In particular, if the Conservatives wish to evince a genuine desire to rid Canada of serious criminals to ensure that these criminals would be brought to justice pursuant to our international obligations in this regard as well, why do they not commit adequate resources to the war crimes program to prosecute war criminals in Canada, as I have repeatedly urged them to do? Indeed, the remedy of deporting a war criminal may result either in a serious war criminal not being held accountable for justice violations at all, or in the reverse, being sent to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture or other cruel or degrading punishment. In either case, what we need at this point is an enhanced war crimes program so that we can deal with the serious war criminals in this country for whom the deportation remedy is not a remedy at all.

A second problem with the legislation is that it would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deny temporary resident status for up to three years on the basis, as has been mentioned, of undefined public policy considerations. Even given the requirement that was added at committee, that the government produce an annual report listing and justifying such denials, this change would still carve out a sphere of unaccountable ministerial discretion and could lead to the further politicization of our immigration system. As a matter of fundamental fairness, people affected by government decisions should be informed of the reasons leading up to those decisions and allowed to present evidence in their favour. Bill C-43 would deny them that right. The legislation would also prohibit the minister from considering humanitarian and compassionate concerns in certain cases, which could also violate a number of Canada's international obligations.

In fact, several elements of the bill may contravene not only international agreements but our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The automatic deportation of individuals to situations of torture, terror and grave danger raises serious concerns with respect to section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person. As well, by denying the right to appeal the deportation orders and by empowering the minister to deny entry on arguably arbitrary and ill-defined grounds, the bill may violate the principles of fundamental justice.

These inconsistencies with the charter brush up against section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. Here, the Minister of Justice must, as stated in the act:

—examine...every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Minister shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.

Yet, the Minister of Justice has tabled no such report on any bill or on this bill. This is not the first time that he has failed to do so when the government has introduced legislation that poses constitutional concerns. When I raised this issue at the justice committee hearings on Bill C-45 as well as in the House, the minister avoided the question. Indeed, a justice department employee is suing the government because he claims that he was suspended for raising this issue in court. I am not suggesting that the minister is deliberately violating the Department of Justice Act, but I await the minister's explanation of why he has apparently not been acting in accordance with it with respect to a number of bills, particularly if one takes the omnibus set of bills such as Bill C-10 with arguably constitutionally suspect provisions, as well as the one before us today in the so-called faster removal of foreign criminals act.

The title of the legislation is sufficiently disconcerting that I cannot close without addressing it. Many of these so-called foreign criminals referred to in Bill C-43 are long-time Canadian residents. To put that title on the bill is to pejoratively and prejudicially mischaracterize them at the outset and does harm to all our constituents.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I frankly do not understand it. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and Canadian law more broadly, we refer to people who are not Canadian citizens as foreign nationals. Therefore, to say that a foreign national who has been convicted in a Canadian court for having committed a serious crime is a foreign criminal is a normal statement of legal fact. It is a reflection of the legal appellation of a foreign national.

The opposition seems to be suggesting that if foreign criminals are sufficiently sympathetic, then somehow even though they are not citizens, they become Canadians. That is simply not true.

One of the provisions of the bill I would like to ask the member about is the inclusion of so-called negative discretion for the minister to deny the admission into Canada of people on such grounds as those who have promoted terrorist organizations, promoted violence and so forth. In the past we have had situations where, for example, the Quebec National Assembly asked me to prevent the admission of Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis, who were extremist imams promoting anti-Semitism, homophobia and violence against women. There is no current tool within IRPA to prevent the admission of such individuals because the promotion of hate crimes in some foreign jurisdictions is not a crime and therefore is not grounds for inadmissibility to Canada.

Would he not agree that there is a need for some tool to exclude such people, who either promote violent extremism or extreme forms of hatred, from entering into Canada?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said elsewhere and reaffirmed today, I do not question the minister's motives. I think they are well-intentioned and I understand the manner in which he would like to use the public policy consideration for the purpose of achieving certain objectives.

Our problem with it is that, as it now reads, without any definable criteria, it does provide a prospective risk of untrammelled and arbitrary discretion. As well, it is not only this minister who will be exercising it, if he would so exercise it and would do so in a proper manner, but it is any other minister, once this legislation is passed, who may not, at the time, exercise it with the due diligence that should normally be warranted and which due diligence should better be prescribed with the criteria. The member for Winnipeg North proposed some of these criteria at committee, and I still would hope that those amendments may yet come into law.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would provide further comment. At the very end of his speech, he made reference to foreign criminals. When I look at documents that come from the department, they include the faster removal of foreign criminals act, backgrounders on foreign criminals and press releases on getting rid of foreign criminals. In fact, with regard to these foreign criminals, what we are really talking about is the fact that the legislation would apply to an estimated 1.5 million permanent residents who call Canada their home.

There is something to be said about the way in which the minister uses his words to try to make a larger percentage of the population look bad, when it is a relatively small percentage of permanent residents who we are talking about in the first place.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the very title of the legislation, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, may suggest that Canada is somehow overrun with foreign terrorists, escaped convicts, war criminals and the like.

Ironically enough, the very war criminals who are in this country, and who should be addressed, may in fact end up being deported to a country where they will not face any justice, which will put us in breach of our international responsibilities under the International Criminal Court treaty and the like, or they will be deported to a country where there is a risk of torture.

On the one hand, we are not dealing with the serious war criminals in this country as we should, but we may be dealing with long-term Canadian residents, some of whom have lived here since childhood, and prospectively applying, however inadvertently, a pejorative label in the title of the legislation.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate concerning the government's Bill C-43, also known as the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

I speak not only as a member of the immigration committee but also as the representative of a riding where people take great stock in and put great importance on the integrity of our immigration system.

Before I explain why I genuinely believe in the necessity of this legislation and consequently strongly oppose the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition in order to delay and gut the bill, I would like to relate to the House a story about a woman named Irene Thorpe.

Ms. Thorpe was a mother of two. Although I did not know her personally, she was also a daughter and a friend to many. She was actually described in a newspaper as having “a life apparently brimming with goodness”. On a very sad day in November 2000, she was killed.

Ms. Thorpe was killed while crossing the street. It happened too fast for her to see the car coming. She was killed by a man who was street racing, one of the most mind-numbingly irresponsible and reckless things someone can do in a car. The man behind the wheel was Singh Khosa. He was racing at about 140 kilometres per hour.

Ms. Thorpe and her dog were crossing a street where the posted maximum speed was 50. Singh Khosa's case was widely reported by news media over many years. He had been granted permanent resident status when he arrived in Canada as a teenager in 1996. What he did was beyond a mistake. It was careless. It was dangerous. It killed someone.

Irene Thorpe was a victim, and her family members were also victims. They will never be the same. Her children are growing up without their mother. What makes her story even more tragic is that her death was so easily avoidable. In 2002, after two years of court proceedings, Mr. Khosa was finally convicted of criminal negligence causing death. He was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day. That sentence, two years less a day, is worth noting, and I will describe why that is the case.

Based on his conviction, reckless and dangerous foreign criminal Singh Khosa was found to be inadmissible to Canada and was ordered deported in April 2003, but it took six years to clear all the roadblocks to remove him from the country. Why did it take so long?

It comes back to that sentence of two years less a day. Under our current system, a permanent resident who receives a sentence greater than six months but less than two years is subject to removal but still can appeal that removal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is worth noting that in cases like that of Mr. Khosa, two years less a day is a common sentence.

Not surprisingly, Singh Khosa took full advantage of his access to the appeals process. His appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division, and subsequent related hearings before various courts enabled him to delay his deportation for the better part of seven years.

Irene Thorpe was killed in a matter of seconds. We all know how her family felt about a seven-year appeal process to finally deport the person responsible, who was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal courts.

As members of this House, we must keep the safety of Canadians at the forefront of our decisions and take action to repair a system that allows foreign criminals to delay their removal from this country for years and years. We must put the interests of victims and of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the interests of criminals.

Fortunately we have a great opportunity to do so by ensuring that the measures in the faster removal of foreign criminals act become the law of our land. There is a number of measures in this bill that would improve the system and create a greater sense of justice and fairness for victims of criminals such as Mr. Khosa.

As a lawyer myself who has stood for the human rights of Canadians in the courts of our land, I still believe we need to keep dangerous foreign criminals from having access to endless appeals to delay their deportation. We need to take them off the streets and out of our country. I sincerely urge my friends in the opposition to stop playing partisan games and to listen to victims organizations, police associations, immigration lawyers and experts and Canadians all across the country who have told us loudly and clearly that they support the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

These are not partisan issues. These are common sense issues. Without a doubt, these tough but fair measures are welcome and long needed. They improve the integrity of the immigration system without compromising its generosity.

Well-known media commentator Lorne Gunter put it well in a recent column when he wrote the following:

If you wish to move here and become a citizen.... Why should Canada have to keep you if you demonstrate your danger to the community during your probationary period?... It is not mean or hard-hearted to deny them citizenship and punt them from our shores more quickly.... If you want to come to Canada and make a new life, welcome. We love to have you. But if you commit a crime while awaiting citizenship, don't claim to be a victim if we make you leave.

An editorial in The Globe and Mail argued, and I quote:

—it is difficult to argue with the bill's main thrust. The immigration process can be enormously complex, but one principle should be fairly straightforward: The tiny share of immigrants and refugees who lack citizenship and are convicted of serious crimes on Canadian soil forfeit their right to be here.

I emphasize the word “tiny” to my friend across the way who suggested that this was to characterize a large number of people as criminals.

I do not imagine that too many Canadians would disagree with this editorial. In fact, I am sure that most Canadians would be shocked to know how easy it is under existing rules for foreign criminals to avoid removal for years on end.

Canadians are generous and welcoming people, but we have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters abusing our generosity. Our Conservative government is putting a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals to delay their removal from Canada, during which time they continue to terrorize innocent Canadians.

Once again, I appeal to all of my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic and Liberal parties to stop opposing this bill. Listen to Canadians and help us ensure the speedy passage into law. Today is a day we can stop Canadians from being victimized by dangerous foreign criminals who have avoided deportation and remain in the country due to a system that provides them with endless appeals.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think all of us in this House can agree that we want due process for non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, and we want them dealt with quickly. However, we are very concerned that this Conservative bill would concentrate even more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister and that it is too overreaching.

Specifically, rather than demonizing the entire population of new Canadians because of a microscopic minority of foreign criminals, why are the Conservatives not acting to help new Canadians reunite with their families and find work that matches their skills? If the government is so concerned in preventing foreign criminals from entering the country, why has it failed to live up to its 2006 promise to put more police on the streets in cities and communities? Why will the government not focus on making our communities safe from criminals of all backgrounds rather than focusing all its attention on demonizing newcomers?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for her work on the immigration committee, on which I also sit.

In fact, I heard the concerns about the minister having too much discretion. We know that, no matter which party is in power, things may change and we have to look at the government in a non-partisan way when we look at bills like this. That is why I brought in an amendment to add an annual report, which would be required of the minister so that there would be transparency when he applied this discretion. This report would require him to be very much in the light of public scrutiny before he used that discretion.

I take my colleague's concern very seriously. We added an amendment at committee, and I am very proud of that amendment, as somebody who cares very much for the human rights of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that, when the minister first introduced the legislation in June last year, he gave us five reasons for the legislation and then he gave five extreme cases. A couple of Conservatives have stood to cite some of those cases. If members of the House were canvassed, we would find very little sympathy for individuals who commit the types of crimes referenced, and there needs to be a consequence to those crimes.

However, this legislation is fairly extreme. It has an impact on many individuals, to the degree in which it should not have that type of impact. I used the example of false identification, a 20-year-old who has lived in Canada for 18 of those 20 years being deported away from mom, dad and siblings as a result of this legislation.

The member for Mount Royal made reference to making a recording in a movie theatre, which could ultimately lead to a deportation without appeal. The legislation is extreme, and it would be better if the government would open its collective mind and recognize the need to make amendments to the legislation.

Why does the member not recognize the valuable contributions of the 1.5 million excellent residents who live in Canada as permanent residents, and yes, at times some of them might—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly this government applauds the contribution of new Canadians, and that is why our government has admitted on an annual basis more new Canadians than have ever been admitted in the past. We are proud of that record and we continue to support immigration to our country.

In the case of this bill we have to remember the three reasons why it is in the House and why hopefully it will become law, certainly if my friends from the opposition put down their partisan cudgels and join to pass this legislation: first, to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country, something all Canadians support; second, to make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to gain admittance to our country; third, to remove barriers for genuinely contributing visitors to our country and the vast number of those who would immigrate to Canada with good intentions to enrich our fabric.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in strong support of C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, at report stage and to oppose the irresponsible amendments introduced by the opposition.

Canadians have a long tradition of being welcoming and generous. In fact, our Conservative government has maintained the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history. We have increased the number of refugees we are resettling into Canada by 20%. In order to maintain that tradition, Canadians need to have confidence in our immigration system.

For too long, Canadians have seen countless stories of people who view Canada as a doormat, a light touch, whose immigration system is an easy target for fraudsters and criminals. Understandably, Canadians have had enough. They have made it clear that they want us to restore the integrity of the immigration system. I am pleased to say that our Conservative government is doing just that.

This long overdue bill would make it easier for the government to deport dangerous foreign criminals from our country, make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter into the country in the first place, while at the same time remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada.

Unfortunately, the opposition has introduced several amendments to try to gut this bill. The opposition members are using these amendments as a partisan tactic to try to delay and prevent passage of this very important piece of legislation. They are playing procedural games, but these games have real consequences to Canada and to Canadians. I will explain the consequences of the games the opposition members are playing by using these amendments to delay passage of the bill.

The bill would ensure the speedy deportation of dangerous foreign criminals. It would ensure that dangerous foreign criminals are taken off of the streets in Canada more quickly and removed from our country. This means that they would no longer be able to commit more crimes in Canada and would no longer be able to victimize more innocent Canadians.

It is shocking to me that there would be anyone who would oppose this legislation, but shamefully, the NDP and Liberals oppose it. The opposition's amendments would delete the entire bill. The NDP and Liberals do not seem to have any problem with these dangerous foreign criminals staying on our streets and living in our communities. I certainly have a problem with that. It shows just how out of touch they are with Canadians in all parts of the country and in all ridings, including mine of Scarborough Centre, who widely support our bill.

Time and time again the NDP and the Liberals put the interests of criminals ahead of the rights of victims and hard-working, law-abiding Canadians. Our Conservative government is the only party in the House that truly cares about victims, that cares about innocent law-abiding Canadians. We are the only party that is cracking down on crime. We introduced the fast removal of foreign criminals act because we know that Canadian families care about safety and security.

Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals do not share the same concern and are proving that yet again by shamefully voting against the bill and trying to prevent it from becoming law. The NDP and Liberals are not just ignoring Canadians who overwhelmingly support the bill; what is worse, they are ignoring the support the bill has received from stakeholders and experts. They are ignoring the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which stated that it:

--supports the efforts of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act to provide for a more expeditious removal from Canada of foreigners who are convicted of committing serious crimes against Canadians. As well, we support measures to prevent those with a history of committing criminal offences, or who pose a risk to our society, from entering Canada. The Act will help to make Canadians and those who legitimately enter Canada safer.

The opposition is also ignoring the Canadian Police Association, which stated that it:

--welcomes the introduction of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, particularly with respect to the enhanced prohibitions against those who have committed serious crimes abroad from coming to Canada.

While the overwhelming majority of those who come to Canada make a tremendous contribution to our shared communities, there does remain a [number] who flout Canadian law and have taken advantage of drawn-out proceedings to remain in the country at a risk to public safety. This legislation will help us by streamlining the procedures necessary to remove individuals who remain at-risk to re-offend.

Ensuring that public safety is one of the considerations with respect to admissibility to Canada is a clear step in the right direction.

The New Democrats and Liberals like to use hypothetical examples and situations during debate, but the fact is that the consequences of this bill not becoming law would be very real. They would be the most real to the unfortunate victims of these dangerous foreign criminals.

Let us take the very real example of Babak Najafi-Chaghabouri. As per recent media reports, this criminal was charged with several crimes, including aggravated assault. He received a prison sentence of 18 months which under the current system allowed him to appeal his deportation to the immigration appeal division which granted him a stay of his removal and allowed him to remain in Canada. Subsequently and sadly, he murdered Ronak Wagad. In fact, he used a hatchet to chop the back of Mr. Wagad's head five times.

[An hon. member]

Disgusting.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, it is disgusting.

The B.C. Supreme Court justice who sentenced this criminal described the murder as horrendous.

These are the criminals the New Democrats and the Liberals want to keep in Canada. These are the very real consequences of providing endless appeals to dangerous foreign criminals. Mr. Wagad's family knows these consequences all too well and will not forget them for the rest of their lives.

We know that the list of real examples is a long one. There are countless unfortunate examples. It is very difficult for me to understand how the New Democrats and Liberals can oppose this bill, but what is worse is that they are using procedural games through irresponsible amendments to try to delay and prevent its passage. The criteria to maintain permanent residency are very simple. People have to live in Canada; they have to obey the law. The vast majority of permanent residents have no trouble doing this. In fact, the vast majority of citizens have no problem meeting these criteria either. However, if people do break the law, there are consequences, even if the New Democrats and Liberals would prefer there not to be.

Our Conservative government is putting a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada, during which time they continue to terrorize innocent Canadians. Canadians are generous and welcoming people, but they have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters who abuse their generosity. The measures included in the faster removal of foreign criminals act are tough but they are fair. They are necessary, and quite frankly, long overdue. We want an immigration system that is open to genuine visitors while at the same time prevents the entry of foreign criminals and denies them the ability to endlessly abuse that generosity.

I urge the New Democrats and the Liberals to stop trying to prevent passage of this bill, to help us ensure its speedy passage and work with our government to help protect the safety and security of Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I reiterate that the NDP is fully committed to ensuring that serious criminals are dealt with in an expeditious way. To that effect, we put forward some very reasonable amendments. As a matter of fact, at the time, at least two of my colleagues on the other side acknowledged how reasonable those amendments were. The amendments we moved would have codified in the legislation the reasons for which we would be keeping someone out of Canada and would have reinstated an appeal process for those who received a sentence of six months. We thought they were very reasonable amendments and yet they were turned down.

With all the cuts that are occurring to border services and the lack of cohesion between CBSA and CIC, which we have heard about a number of times in the Auditor General's report and from witnesses, would our energy not be better spent addressing those issues rather than telling stories that are so far out that those—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I go to the hon. member, I know we are just back from a break, but I remind all hon. members to pay attention to the Chair and when their time is expired they will be given that indication. That way, more hon. members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned that the member suggests we should use our energy in other areas. The responsibility of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. I personally believe as a Conservative member of Parliament that any legislation we put forward that would do just that is not a waste of time.

With respect to the member's comments regarding the six-month period, I remind the House that a six-month sentence is not going to be for some minor misdemeanour. It is for a serious crime. We had witness after witness testify to that effect. I will leave it on the table that six months is justifiable for serious crimes and that this government will continue to focus on the safety and security of our citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am more offended by the fact that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre continues to attack the Liberals and the New Democrats and leaves out the Green Party, because most of these amendments were put forward by the Green Party, or that she thinks the purpose of the amendments is simply to waste time in some sort of political game.

The amendments I put forward are substantive, detailed, precise. They go toward creating balance of probability considerations for a minister to consider. They go toward providing more criteria around the minister's discretion.

Nowhere could anyone read my amendments and think that the goal was to keep dangerous foreign criminals in Canada. Also, the assertion, which I am sure she did not write herself but came from the PMO in some talking point, that people on this side of the House do not care about victims, is deeply offensive.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member opposite if I missed the Green Party in my speech. Unfortunately, as the member knows, the Green Party does not have official status in this House, having only one seat, and is not actually a member of the immigration committee.

Having said that, I would like to point out that this particular legislation actually goes to three different directions. It makes it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals. It makes it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter Canada. Importantly, a point which is left out of a lot of the questions asked by the opposition, including the party of the one person in the corner, is it actually removes the barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada and expedites that process. That is important also to note.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Davenport, in the great city of Toronto. This issue is one of grave concern to many people in Toronto. It is an issue that strikes at the core of families in our cities.

There seems to be some confusion on the other side that somehow we on this side are not in favour of a system that really deals with violent criminals who are not Canadian citizens. That is just a fabrication. If the Conservatives want to speak about partisan politics, that is partisan politics at its worst because it is a gross mischaracterization.

I want to talk a bit about two stories that are very close to me. These people both come from my riding. I had a call from a very distraught mother whose 14-year-old was violently assaulted, in fact so much so that this young person will need a couple of years to recuperate. Those who were arrested for the crime were not Canadian citizens. The mother was in pieces, as anyone could understand a parent to be. She wanted to know how this could happen to her child on the streets of Toronto, which by the way are generally safe streets.

It brings to mind the fact that if the government is serious about dealing with violent criminals, then how can it justify the cuts that it has made, for example to border services? In the 2012 budget there were cuts of $143 million to the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The bulk of guns, for example, that are used in violent crimes in the city of Toronto are illegal guns, smuggled in from the United States. What does the government do? Instead of protecting Canadian citizens and communities, the child or the mother who phoned me last week, it has cut at the very spot where we actually need more protection and security. We need more thorough checks because it is easy to smuggle in a gun, evidently, because we are awash in them and the government has systematically cut the very agency that we need.

When we talk about Bill C-43, we heard time and time again from stakeholders, who held a variety of opinions on this issue, that the most important thing was to deal with the system we had and make it more efficient. The government has a lot to answer for to the woman in my riding. This legislation is not the answer. This is cold comfort for my constituent and her child.

This is part of the reason why we on our side rejected this. We presented balanced, prudent, moderate amendments to the bill that would have dealt with the very thing that my constituent called me about, which was a regime that was more efficient in dealing with violent criminals who were not Canadian citizens.

That is one story that came to me over the course of the break.

The other story came earlier. It was from a parent who came into my office extremely concerned because her child had been picked up by the police in what sounded like a random pickup. This was a young person, a racialized youth from an immigrant community and a newcomer to Canada. The family was just getting a foothold in our country. This young person was extremely scared and acted a little inappropriately. These things happen with young people from time to time. Mistakes are made.

The concern that the parent had was that if the son was sent back to the home country, there would be nobody there for him. If he was troubled, he needed the support of his family. I think that is something everyone in this place would agree with, that for young people in trouble one of the biggest issues is family support.

This person came to me with a real concern. It is a concern that our party shares. We are concerned about the broad sweep of the bill. We are concerned about the fact that more and more power is being requested by the minister.

This is a government with ministers who do not have a great record of the kind of behaviour that would make Canadians feel secure and safe in giving them even more power and less accountability and transparency. We have a minister who writes a letter to the CRTC, another minister who has overspent in his election and another who likes to take helicopter joyrides. There is a laundry list of transgressions by ministers on that side.

Now we have legislation, and this is not the first one, where the minister is trying to gather more and more power for himself or his office, with less and less accountability. We have heard from stakeholders who hold a variety of views on this issue. They have raised those concerns and they are legitimate ones.

When we talk about public safety, we have to underscore that the government's actions undermine public safety. They undermine communities' desires to be safe and secure in their communities.

The Conservatives are saying that cuts to border services do not have any impact on front-line services at the border where guns do come across. It is wishful thinking. We know from the Customs and Immigration Union that over 300 jobs on the front line of border crossings will be cut. A lot of them are happening in the GTA. We have a multicultural community and many newcomers.

Let us be clear. The government is speaking as though newcomers to Canada are some kind of troublesome thing for Canadian society. The bulk of newcomers to Canada are peaceful, peace-loving, hard-working, positive additions to the Canadian family. We should be proud of this and we should embrace that fact.

We should be looking for ways to support them, to support their families, to support family reunification and not to pick out a very small important sector of Canadian society that does commit violent crime. We should think more about those families that really need the support so they can get the firm footing in Canadian society that we promise them. That is the most important thing.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I find this confusion the NDP has between serious convicted foreign criminals and normal law-abiding permanent residents completely bizarre. I find that those people in our country who most eagerly want us to deport more quickly convicted foreign criminals are typically new Canadians. They have come here to pursue a life of opportunity in a safe and peaceful society and have zero tolerance for those who have come here and violated the only thing that we require a permanent resident to stay, which is not to commit a serious criminal offence. That is why I announced the policy now found in the bill during the last election as a platform item in Vancouver's Chinatown in front of the ethnocultural media precisely because new Canadians had asked us to more quickly remove from Canada the small number of people in their communities who were creating havoc.

When Jackie Tran was delaying deportation and his criminal gang were shooting people in Calgary, it was typically other Canadians of Vietnamese origin. New Canadians are disproportionately the victims of this kind of crime.

Does the member believe we should deport from Canada foreign nationals who are convicted of a crime with a custodial sentence of six months or more?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly. We have to understand that the examples the minister just gave were of individuals who had sentences of more than two years. Therefore, the measures he is referring to are not necessarily contained here anyway.

There is no question on this side of the House that we need to deal with violent criminals. The issue is the broad sweep of the bill. If the government were actually serious about working with the opposition, we tabled nine prudent, measured amendments to the bill that would have dealt with some of these issues that the minister referred to, but it rejected these out of hand and so here we are.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the member provide further comment in regard to the minister who likes to stand on a pedestal from coast to coast to coast and label and generalize. Now we are talking about foreign criminals trying to give the impression that permanent residents in Canada are bad people or there is a good percentage of bad people out there who are foreigners and we have to get them out of our country as soon as possible.

We have over 1.5 million permanent residents living in Canada, the vast majority of whom are excellent residents and for whatever reasons they do not get citizenship. At the end of the day we are talking about a very small percentage. The minister, through labelling, puts a negative image on a much larger number of residents in Canada. Would the member comment on that point?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of new Canadians and newcomers to our country is one that is a completely simplified issue and the government loves to paint things in very simple lines. The fact is it not simple. We have families that come to our country and they contribute greatly. The newcomers of today are the excellent citizens of Canada tomorrow. This is the history of our country.

With the rhetoric that constantly comes from the other side, one would think that new Canadian communities were a hotbed of criminal activity. It is just not the case. We have to deal with violent crime and violent criminals. The bill overreaches, oversteps and most experts share that opinion.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate Bill C-43. If passed, the faster removal of foreign criminals act will go a long way toward ensuring the safety and security of Canadians, and for that, I wholeheartedly support it.

Unfortunately, the opposition has put forward several amendments that would essentially gut the bill and prevent it from becoming the law. In other words, the NDP and Liberals are trying to prevent us from protecting the safety and security of Canadian families.

Canada's immigration system is rightly regarded to be among the most open and generous in the world. Immigration has always been a sustaining feature of Canada's history, and continues to play an important role in building our country. In fact, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history.

Our immigration system works really well, but it is not perfect. No system is, but with Bill C-43 we are taking action to correct one glaring problem afflicting our immigration system.

We see time and time again that foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes on our soil are able to endlessly delay their deportation by using an avenue of appeal that exists under the current law. There are many examples of convicted foreign criminals who have abused our generosity and tested our patience by drawing out their removal process via this avenue. They include fraudsters, drug traffickers, rapists and child abusers, some of the worst people humanity has to offer.

Take the case of Cesar Guzman, who was issued a deportation order after being convicted of sexually assaulting a senior citizen. As Nadia Moharib reported in the Calgary Sun, his victim was an 87-year-old woman at a senior care facility where he was employed. Despite the seriousness of his loathsome and sickening crime, this sexual predator, a man who preyed on and violated one of the most vulnerable members of our society, was sentenced to only 18 months in prison.

To make matters worse, the short length of that sentence allowed this sex offender to appeal his deportation order. This man should have been sent packing back to Peru as soon as he walked out the prison gate after serving his sentence, but because of the avenue of appeal that opened for him, the removal process ended up dragging on for years. Having initially been ordered deported in May 2007, Mr. Guzman was not removed from Canada until April 2011, amounting to nearly four years of delay.

Canadians can be forgiven for seething with rage when they hear the details of this disturbing case. The bottom line is that this man should never have had the opportunity to appeal his deportation in the first place.

Currently, a permanent resident or foreign national may be ordered deported if they could receive a maximum sentence in Canada of at least 10 years for their crime, or if they receive an actual sentence of more than six months.

The problem is that under the current system, as long as their sentence is less than two years, a permanent resident can appeal their deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. If they lose their appeal at the IAD, they may then apply for leave and judicial review of that decision at the Federal Court, and on it can go from there.

As a result, serious foreign criminals are often able to delay deportation from Canada for many months, even years on end. In all this time, while their victims suffer, they are free to walk on the street. What is worse is that many of these convicted criminals have gone on to re-offend while they are in Canada, endangering Canadians and making a mockery of our laws.

With Bill C-43, we want to send a clear message to foreign criminals. If they commit a serious crime in Canada, they will get their day in court, but they will then be sent packing as quickly as possible. Under Bill C-43, any permanent resident who receives a sentence in Canada of six months or more would no longer be able to appeal their deportation to the IAD. Also, those who have committed serious crimes outside Canada will be barred from accessing the Immigration Appeal Division. In addition, those who are inadmissible on the most serious grounds, such as organized crime or war crimes, would no longer have access to a program that is meant for exceptional cases deserving of humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Yet another key change would give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism a new authority to deny entry in exceptional cases to the foreign nationals who give rise to public concern, such as individuals who encourage or incite hatred likely to lead to violence. This would close a loophole in our current system whereby certain foreigners who are not admissible to Canada are admissible even though they might represent a risk to us. Those foreigners may, for example, have a long track record of promoting hatred and inciting violence against vulnerable groups.

Individuals with immediate family members who are inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality would also be barred from visiting Canada under Bill C-43, even if they are travelling alone. That being said, we would facilitate the visits of those individuals with immediate family members who are inadmissible on less serious grounds, such as health.

The government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians and Bill C-43 is a strong expression of that commitment. Indeed, the proposed changes in this legislation would increase our ability to protect Canadians from criminals and security threats, including newcomers who have come here to find peace and build a new life. At the same time, we would also strengthen our immigration program and facilitate entry for some low-risk visitors. These tough but fair measures would ensure that foreign criminals are not allowed to abuse our generosity endlessly.

I hope that my hon. colleagues in the NDP and Liberal parties will stop opposing this bill and join us in supporting Bill C-43 and help make these measures a reality.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Surrey North, there are many Canadians waiting to be reunited with family members abroad. Under the present Conservative government, that lineup has gotten longer and longer. Not only that, but there are also qualified individuals here who have come from different countries whom the government has failed to help find appropriate jobs.

Why is my colleague demonizing immigrants instead of focusing on improving the broken immigration system that is in place?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Surrey North would be asking a question on Bill C-43.

However, as he has asked about visa issues, my colleague should know that this government has brought in the maximum number of immigrants into Canada. This is the government that has been trying to fix the broken immigration system put in place by the previous government. This is the government that has issued the maximum number of visas. For example, in Chandigarh, the rate was 32%, but now it is above 50%. The member should know better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member listens to the minister's propaganda a little too much.

It was the Liberals who established the office in Chandigarh. It was the Liberals who created the nominee program that has allowed the current government to hit the immigration numbers it is hitting. At the end of the day, we do not mind sharing our successful programs with the Conservatives, but we do take exception when they mess up on legislation. This is one of those cases. A specific example of that within Bill C-43 deals with misrepresentation.

I am sure the member is aware of unintentional misrepresentation, which occurs by accident or through a bad immigration consultant or lawyer, and a mistake is made on the application. Through Bill C-43, the government would increase the wait time from two years to five years, which seems very harsh when many innocent mistakes are made when filling out an application. That is why we have the term “unintentional misrepresentation” for issues such as immigration lawyers who give bad advice. However, with Bill C-43, there seems to be a fairly heavy consequence for this.

Why would the government not be open to an amendment that would keep the wait time at two years as opposed to five years, especially where it is proven that an unintentional mistake was made?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North should know, first of all, that I am an immigrant. The vast majority of immigrants who come to this country want to work hard and play by the rules. They value Canada and seek to be productive members of our great nation.

Those who would come to this country and break our laws and victimize our fellow Canadians do not deserve a break. That is my belief, and I deal with immigrants on a day-to-day basis in my riding, because mine is one of the most multicultural ridings in Canada.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is problematic. In fact, the title is the only thing that makes any sense and the only thing we all agree on. The thing that offends me the most is that the Conservatives are accusing us of trying to protect criminals and stonewalling the bill. Clearly, it will be impossible to have any kind of reasonable, intelligent debate as long as the other side of the House continues to use abusive language and give such extreme examples. They describe all kinds of horrible things for weeks, but that will do absolutely nothing to advance the debate.

I occasionally meet people in my riding who came to Canada as immigrants or refugees. They tell me that what bothers and offends them the most is to see powerful people, people with tremendous resources, who manage to beat the system and come to Canada with certain privileges. Those people are the hardest to deport in many cases. The sluggishness and inefficiency of the whole immigration system really bothers many of these people when they want to bring the rest of their family to Canada.

It makes me laugh to hear the Liberals and Conservatives argue about this, since the system's inefficiencies go back about 100 years. Both parties have been equally incompetent ever since the system was first created.

When the Conservatives decide to fix something, they always take aim at whatever is not broken. For example, although there are problems with border security and delays in processing immigration files, they find it easier to attack a very small number of people with unpronounceable surnames. They ask them to talk about all the horrible and repugnant things they have done in order to maintain a sort of fear in society. That is what they do. They put all their energy into that, instead of thinking about the issue and having an intelligent discussion with people who, like us, are actually trying to protect citizens from a minority of people with bad intentions who really represent a threat to our society.

The Conservatives are repeating all the mistakes made by Australia. This is nothing new and it is not insignificant. Canada's treatment of aboriginal peoples is based on the Australian model, which turned out to be horrible. Australians apologized and continue to work on fixing the damage they caused. More recently, they reformed their immigration system and made terrible mistakes, which they are now correcting.

Now we are implementing their model. I do not understand where the Conservatives look for their ideas. That is the danger with all extreme positions. There is no room for reflection in extremism. They only know how to be derisive instead of thinking things through. In the long run, they will destroy our country and its reputation. This is going nowhere.

The Conservatives accuse us of not wanting to collaborate or make constructive comments. However, every time they open their mouths, they accuse us of being criminals.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

That is odd, Mr. Speaker. The member just said that we are destroying the country because we want to expedite the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals. That is something else.

My question is very simple. Does the member agree that we should remove foreigners from this country if they have been found guilty in a Canadian criminal court and have been given a sentence of six months or more?

Does he believe that it is acceptable to delay deportation of these criminals for years, or does he believe that we should remove them as quickly as possible to keep our communities safe?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I agree that dangerous criminals who have been given a sentence for a very serious offence should be sent home to their own country. We do not want to bring criminals to Canada; we want to bring people who will work and contribute to society.

The danger with the minister's comments is that people end up forming associations in their minds. If people only ever hear about extreme cases and base their judgment on those cases, they begin to associate temporary residents or refugees with criminals. It is that aspect of the government's attitude that I find shocking.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government and this particular Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have been soundly criticized by many stakeholders across the country in regard to the way in which the department, through the minister, is going to be treating, in particular, young individuals who come to Canada at two, three, four years of age and are raised in Canada. In essence, these children would not have had any association whatsoever with their parents' homeland and might not even speak the language of that country. Under this legislation they could be deported shortly after turning 18 or 19 years of age if they commit relatively minor, yet some would argue serious, offences such as making a video recording of a recently released movie at a movie theatre or using false identification in the United States in order to acquire a drink.

This is not what I believe Canadians want to see. This would be extreme and is one of the reasons the legislation must be amended before it is ultimately passed.

I would like the member to comment on this.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the examples given by my colleague, even though sometimes I get the impression that I have already heard them.

The danger does not necessarily reside in specific extreme cases but in the long-term effects of such action, which would create two classes of people. In my opinion, we should start treating people who have lived here for 20 years and those who may have even been born here as citizens.

How many people could be deported without notice as a result of this legislation? In the long term, there is really no limit. Are we going to choose other categories, other types of people that we do not like?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. A question came to mind as I was reading the provisions of Bill C-43. I came across the clause that prohibits the invocation of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In my opinion, this is quite serious.

By eliminating this possibility, we are preventing the minister from taking into account the best interests of children, which goes against Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am wondering what my colleague thinks about this about-face. Once again, the Conservatives are ignoring international rules to which Canada has already agreed.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the precedent was already set, in their minds at least, when they spoke about imprisoning children of refugees who are considered to be irregular arrivals. It does not really bother them to deport someone to a country where he would not last five minutes because the situation there is so dire.

There are countries that have already done this and regretted it. The Americans deported many young California street gang members to El Salvador. These young people came back armed and with the support of drug trafficking networks. They are now the biggest problem in the streets of El Salvador and California.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motions Nos. 1 to 27.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history. On average around 250,000 immigrants have come to Canada every year, and the vast majority of these newcomers are honest, hard-working and law-abiding. They expect their fellow newcomers and all Canadians to be the same.

While Canadians are open and welcoming toward immigration, we also insist on vigilance against people who seek to abuse our generosity and openness. One of the basic requirements for newcomers to stay in Canada is that they respect our laws. This is the very least we can expect from Canadian citizens, and the vast majority of us do so. Therefore, when we ask newcomers to respect our laws, we are not asking too much of them. It was in this spirit that we introduced Bill C-43, which would prevent foreign criminals from abusing our generosity.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act clearly states that should foreign nationals fail to respect our laws, they will be sent home. What prevents the timely removal of foreign criminals is the fact that they have access to the Immigration Appeal Division as long as their sentence is less than two years. Should their appeal fail, they then file an application for leave and judicial review with the Federal Court, and the process can go on for years and years. Many foreign criminals deliberately use these multiple avenues to delay their removal, even though they know they have no chance of staying here permanently. While they prolong their stay in Canada, many foreign criminals go on to commit more crimes.

Over the course of this debate, the House has become aware of the case of Clinton Gayle. He delayed his deportation for several years by using the appeal mechanism, which Bill C-43 would shut down for foreign criminals. The fact that he was able to delay his deportation for so long should disturb all Canadians. What is most distressing of course is that during that time, the Jamaican national murdered a Toronto police constable. While there were differences between the immigration legislation in force at the time and the situation now, we want to prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future by preventing foreign criminals from roaming our streets before being removed. If Mr. Gayle had been deported to Jamaica when he should have been, this horrible crime could not have happened in the first place. What is more, Canadian taxpayers are also on the hook for his crime, paying for him to subsist in a Canadian prison while he serves a life sentence. Foreign criminals have too many opportunities to stay in Canada and we must put a stop to this.

Another example is the case of Geo Wei Wu. He came to Canada from China as a student and gained permanent residency as a spouse in 1990. Over the next two decades he was 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 was found inadmissible and a removal order was issued. Under the current rules, he was entitled to appeal this 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. This past summer, the media reported that he is now wanted by Peel Regional Police in connection with the kidnapping last year of two men in Mississauga. He is still at large.

The cases of Geo Wei Wu and Clinton Gayle underscore the need for Parliament to support Bill C-43, which would streamline and accelerate the removal process for serious foreign criminals.

By limiting access to the Immigration Appeal Division, the government estimates that the amount of time certain criminals might remain in Canada would be reduced by up to 14 months. If the bill's measures are implemented, there would then be no chance for convicted criminals like Clinton Gayle or Geo Wei Wu to remain in Canada for years beyond their welcome while they gum up the justice system with appeals and, potentially, commit more crimes.

Canadians do not want our doors to be open to people who endanger our national security and the safety of our communities. That is why the government is unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security and protect the safety and security of the Canadian public.

Also, in order to maintain Canadian support for immigration we must ensure that our immigration system is characterized by the consistent application of fair rules. This means that we must protect our system from those who would seek to abuse Canada's generosity by violating our laws. In other words, we must stop placing the rights of foreign criminals before those of Canadian citizens, meaning that we must be able to deal with cases of this nature more efficiently.

I ask my fellow members to think of the victims. Think if it were one of their own family members victimized by a serious foreign criminal allowed to stay in Canada for several years through endless abuse of the process. Imagine if Todd Baylis, the Toronto police constable who was murdered by a convicted foreign criminal appealing his own deportation order, was a member of one's own family. We would then think it were a serious problem needing to be fixed.

The passage of Bill C-43 would send a strong message to all newcomers in Canada that if they commit a serious crime they will be sent home.

Bill C-43 would reinforce the integrity of our immigration system and public confidence in it, and ultimately help maintain public support for immigration in Canada.

I support Bill C-43 because it is fair, necessary and a long overdue piece of legislation. For these reasons, I urge my fellow members of the House to do the same. I urge them to listen to the police associations, the victims associations, the immigration lawyers and experts who support the bill. I urge them, for once, to stop putting the interests of criminals first and instead put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians and the safety and security of Canadian families at the forefront.

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

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

The Conservative government has not kept its 2006 promise to put more police officers on the streets in cities and communities.

Why is the government demonizing newcomers instead of focusing on protecting our communities?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election our party campaigned on this promise. It was very clear that our government was committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. Our platform promised to expedite the deportation of foreign criminals. Our government has followed up on that promise by introducing Bill C-43.

Canadians are a very generous and welcoming people, but they have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters who are abusing our generosity. Bill C-43 clearly addresses this issue, which is what Canadians expect of us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his opinion on an example, which hopefully will simplify things. Imagine two 19-year-olds who attend a movie. They are a little mischievous and they record what they are watching at the movie theatre. If they were to publish it or use it, that would be a violation and would ultimately see, if one of the 19-year-olds was not a Canadian citizen but came here when he was one year old, that he would be deported. On the other hand, the other 19-year-old might get a conditional sentence, not have to spend any time whatsoever in jail.

Would the member say to his constituents and Canadians that is fair, Conservative justice?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, instead of going into hypothetical questions and answers, I would be happy to provide the hon. member with real cases. For example, Jackie Tran committed a series of crimes including assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. His removal was ordered in April 2004. It took nearly six years for the government to get him out of the country. There are many other examples, such as Patrick de Florimonte, who was charged and convicted of multiple assaults with weapons, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, multiple counts of theft, drug possession, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders. For that it took about four and a half years to get him out of the country.

These are the sort of cases for which Canadians have no patience or tolerance. They expect results.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and also listened during question period to some of the responses that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism made to questions posed to him. One of the most important things we do in this place is to bring the opinions and desires of our constituents and to live up to our commitments.

The hon. member mentioned this bill was part of our platform. In his community has he gone out and talked to his constituents? Perhaps he could explain to us how his constituents feel about this proposed legislation and perhaps share the comments he received during the campaign and recently. I know he comes from a community where this is a very important piece of legislation, and the opinions of his constituents are very important. Could he elaborate and answer that for the House?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was an immigrant to this country at a very young age. There are many new immigrants and new Canadians living in my riding. They migrate to this country for an opportunity. They have seen struggles and the undemocratic process in certain countries, and they want peace in Canada. They are the ones who have absolutely no tolerance when they see a very small percentage of their fellow newcomers who commit these crimes.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-43. We completely agree with the underlying principle of this bill. Non-citizen criminals must be deported. I want to be very clear about that because the Conservatives are so quick to say that the NDP supports criminals. That is not true. It is our responsibility to spot flaws in bills and fix them. That is what all parliamentarians should do as part of their job in the House.

Bill C-43 does many things, which I will summarize briefly. It gives more powers to the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. This means that the minister will have the power to declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if he is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

Furthermore, Bill C-43 will remove the minister's responsibility to examine humanitarian grounds. I would like to emphasize this point, because this is quite serious. Currently, the minister has the obligation, at the request of a foreign national or on his own initiative, to review any humanitarian considerations related to the case of a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds related to security. As a country that is recognized for its humanitarian standards, we cannot send someone back to a country where we know what will happen to him or one that could be dangerous.

Furthermore, the bill grants the minister a new discretionary power to issue an exemption for a member of the family of a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible and amends the definition of “serious criminality” to restrict access to the appeal process following an inadmissibility ruling. By doing so, it removes the right to appeal if the prison sentence imposed is six months or more. This aspect really needs to be considered.

The bill increases the penalty for misrepresentation and clarifies the fact that entering the country by resorting to criminal activities does not automatically lead to inadmissibility.

We see some shortcomings. This bill gives the minister considerable discretionary power, which is very troubling. Australia, whose legislative system is quite similar to ours, did the same thing. The Australian Migration Act gave the minister enormous powers. The minister could summarily dismiss the claims of someone who has appealed a decision. That is also being proposed here. However, in many cases, Australian immigration ministers have reversed decisions handed down by tribunals and deported individuals without a trial. That is not exactly my idea of democracy.

The Australians are in the process of correcting their mistakes. So, as a country and as parliamentarians, we must move forward, learn from others' mistakes and ensure that we have suitable laws and systems in place. We should not do what other countries have tried only to find that it did not work. I realize that the context may be different depending on the country and the legislative framework; however, with this bill, we are heading in the wrong direction.

We want to work with the government and the other parties to make this a good bill. I repeat: we completely agree with the principle of removing foreign perpetrators of major crimes from Canada. It is not a good idea to keep them in Canada. However, the things I have outlined cause problems and often generate concerns. My colleagues, who work very hard on the immigration file, presented nine amendments.

These nine amendments would have fixed the flaws in this bill, so that it would represent a positive for Canada. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Conservatives reject anything that comes from another party. They say that we always vote against their bills, but they also vote against our suggestions, even when they are good.

I want to point out that the minister said that one of the amendments we had proposed was something that should be considered. So it does not make sense that he would reject the amendment.

These amendments would limit the powers granted and would restore a fair process for trials and possibilities for appeal.

First, I would like to give an example and speak about the negative picture that the government is painting in Canada. The government always talks about extreme cases. Yes, there are extremely tragic cases. I hope these types of things never happen in our country, in my community or in any other community. These extreme cases are not a fair representation of the immigrant community here in Canada, in my community and in communities throughout the country.

Immigrants come to Canada and make a tremendous contribution to our society and our communities. They enrich our country, the province of Quebec and my community. At a luncheon that was held on Saturday in my riding, I had the honour of congratulating new Canadian citizens who had just received their citizenship. It was really wonderful. I was able to meet new citizens who are fitting into the community very well. They have good jobs. They care a lot about their community and are very dedicated to it. They are truly outstanding citizens.

It is truly misguided to portray all refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants as criminals who are not good for Canada. We should really be making it known that immigrants enrich our communities and are very positive.

Another point should be made. In the last budget, the Conservatives made $143 million in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. They want to prevent criminals from coming to Canada and committing crimes. Logic dictates that these people should be prevented from entering the country. However, such deep cuts to services obviously limit the ability of border services officers to prevent these foreign criminals from entering Canada.

I see that I am almost out of time. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the NDP agrees 100% that serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens must be deported. However, we disagree with some of this bill's measures. We would like to work with the other parties to create a bill without flaws and shortcomings that is positive for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very informative speech.

I know that many people are openly opposed to this bill. I would like to quote an op-ed piece from Embassy magazine. It is titled

“Bill could mean barring of innocent human rights heroes”.

This piece says that if Bill C-43 is passed as is, it will have an immediate and serious effect on many refugees and immigrants and their families. It also talks about the vast scope of the inadmissibility provisions.

It also says that if this bill were to pass, certain individuals—who should be considered human rights heroes and advocates—would be removed from Canada. Nelson Mandela is one of those people.

What are your thoughts on the extreme measures set out in the bill? What are the implications for people who are convicted under unfair laws in their own country?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question, which is very relevant.

Laws differ from one country to another. It is true that Mr. Mandela was considered a criminal at the time and was imprisoned. But he is admired by society. He built a nation and fought long and hard against a grave injustice in his country. He should not be someone who could be deported from Canada. That is just one of many examples we could give.

Some people may be considered criminals because it is against the law in their country to be a homosexual. Would we also consider them criminals and deport them from our country? That is a question we need to ask ourselves before we pass this bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has surely noticed, as I have, that since arriving here, the majority government opposite often introduces bills that are negative. This bill is punitive and detrimental for a small fraction of the population.

Does my colleague also ever wonder why the Conservatives do not introduce humanitarian bills and bills that would benefit a greater number of people?

For example, could this bill focus on family reunification instead of punishing just a few immigrants?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every week if not every day, many people come to my office to tell me that they have been waiting for two years for a decision on their application for reunification with their wives. We are talking about their wives; these people are married. Their wives cannot come to Canada because the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has not gotten around to reviewing their case.

The Conservatives do not see that it would be a positive step for Canada. They are making cuts instead of concentrating on a major problem at the department. People waiting for family reunification—and I am talking about immediate family—are facing completely unreasonable delays.

At the same time, the government has cut aid to Haiti just because it felt there was too much garbage there. That is truly what the minister said.

First, we have to wonder about Canada's role on the international scene. Next, we have to wonder about our role as a country that welcomes these immigrants. We should be promoting reasonable waiting periods for family reunification so that people can be with their loved ones. I realize that it takes time to study a file. However, a two-year waiting period shows that the government does not have its priorities straight.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be part of this debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

The legislation would go a long way toward rectifying a situation that should cause Canadians great concern. There are far too many foreign criminals in Canada who manage to remain in this country long after they have been ordered deported. This highlights the need to reform our immigration appeals system, and that is exactly what Bill C-43 would do. That is why I am speaking today in favour of the bill and against the opposition amendments that have been put forward to try to prevent the bill from becoming law.

As long as they receive sentences of less than two years, permanent residents and certain foreign nationals who have committed crimes in Canada can appeal their removal orders from this country to the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I am talking about criminals convicted of serious crimes, including drug trafficking, weapons violations, domestic abuse, sexual abuse and more. As long as they have received a sentence of not longer than two years less a day, they can use the immigration appeals system to remain in Canada for what often turns out to be years.

Dealing with appeals from people who should not even be in the country squanders a vast amount of time, effort and public resources through our legal system. Worse than that, too many of these cases are tinged with tragedy. My colleagues have listed several examples of dangerous foreign criminals using the current system to delay their deportations, many of whom committed more crimes while they were allowed to remain in Canada. They have made strong arguments for why the provisions to deport foreign criminals are necessary and long overdue, so I will not use my time to duplicate these.

Instead I want to speak about portions of the bill that have not received much, if any, attention from the opposition. While the bill does make it easier to remove dangerous foreign criminals, it also includes other important provisions.

It makes it harder for those who pose a risk to enter Canada in the first place. Most members of the House will think I am only referring to the discretion provided to the minister in the bill to prevent those who seek to incite hate and violence but are currently admissible to Canada. In fact, I am referring to another part of the bill. I think Canadians would be shocked to learn that under our current system, if someone is found to be inadmissible on the most serious grounds of security, international or human rights violations or organized criminality, they can apply for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Yes, that is right. War criminals, terrorists and gangsters involved in organized crime can apply to permanently immigrate to Canada under compassionate grounds. Under Bill C-43, the government is putting an end to these despicable criminals having this avenue to apply to come and remain in Canada. This important change is consistent with the government's no safe haven policy and is more than overdue.

I am shocked to hear that the Liberals and NDP oppose this change and have called for the worst sorts of criminals to continue to have access to an avenue of appeal meant for people who have compelling cases but who are not otherwise eligible under our immigration laws. Furthermore, the opposition members' claim that the bill takes away the appeal and makes it harder to enter Canada shows they do not fully understand the bill. They have not once spoken to the portion of the bill that actually removes barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada.

Let me explain that. Currently, if a family travels to Canada and it is discovered that one of the family members is inadmissible to Canada on non-serious grounds, for example medical reasons, the entire family is found inadmissible and denied entry into the country, even if the other members of the family are admissible. One can imagine that this causes a lot of frustration and can cost a lot of money and time for the families affected.

Under Bill C-43, the government is improving the current system. If and when the bill becomes law, if one member of a family is found inadmissible on non-serious grounds, the rest of the family will no longer be found inadmissible along with that inadmissible individual. Furthermore, the admissible family members would be allowed to enter Canada. Surely the opposition agrees with this change to facilitate the travel of low-risk genuine visitors to Canada. Yet they conveniently ignored this portion of the bill in the committee and in the debate today.

In fact, our Conservative government has taken several steps to facilitate the entry of low-risk genuine visitors to Canada. We introduced a multiple-entry visa, lifted visas from several countries and are introducing biometrics, which will help facilitate the identification and entry of legitimate visitors. In the first half of 2012 we have let in a record number of visitors to Canada.

The faster removal of foreign criminals act will indeed do just that. It will allow us to deport criminals faster. This is a very laudable and worthwhile change. However, it does a lot more than that. It will also ensure that war criminals, terrorists and organized gangsters are no longer able to apply to live in Canada permanently under humanitarian considerations. It ensures that Canada will no longer be a safe haven for those despicable criminals.

What has been almost completely ignored by the opposition is that the bill will help remove barriers to legitimate visitors to Canada.

Bill C-43 is part of our Conservative government's plan to transform Canada's immigration system. As a whole, our changes would move Canada away from the Liberal system, which was a slow, rigid system, riddled with long processing times and massive backlogs in which immigrants were facing unemployment and underemployment and criminals were using our country as a doormat to abuse our generosity. It will move to a system that is just-in-time, that processes applications quickly and attracts the immigrants our economy needs today and into the future, a system in which immigrants are working in their fields as soon as they arrive in Canada, a system in which those who pose a risk are prevented from entering Canada in the first place and in which foreign nationals who commit crimes are taken off the streets and swiftly deported.

Canadians have a long tradition of being welcoming. Our country is one of immigrants. I myself am one. However, in order to maintain that generosity, Canadians must have confidence and integrity in our system. They want to know that we are letting in honest, law-abiding visitors and immigrants while keeping out dangerous foreign criminals and others who pose a risk to the country. This is not too much for them to ask, and it is exactly what Bill C-43 strives to do.

I urge my Liberal and NDP colleagues to stop trying to prevent the bill from becoming law and instead to support our government in ensuring its speedy passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

If the government cares so much about reducing crime among non-citizens and speeding up the deportation of non-citizens who commit crime, why does it not invest more money in the federal agencies responsible for identifying and deporting these non-citizen criminals?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we indeed have invested more into our system. As is well-known in the Senate committee, we are looking into biometrics. We are looking at sharing data with other countries that are also open to immigrants, such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia and the U.K.

These are all measures that are set up and that we have invested in to better identify the criminality of immigrants.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing the bill the member made reference to the Conservatives' speaking notes in regard to how wonderful the Conservatives are with respect to immigration, and we know that to not be true. I will cite the backlogs that the member refers to.

We have to recognize that this particular Minister of Immigration added to the backlog significantly in one year, with over 180,000 people. Then he decided to try to fix the problem that he created and what does he do? He hits the delete button, deleting tens of thousands of people who were already in the queue, waiting to be able to immigrate to Canada. That is not how you solve or resolve problems.

Then we have Bill C-43 and the naming of the bill and how the government or the minister wants to call permanent residents foreign criminals. Does the member not agree with the Liberals and others inside the House who would say that a vast majority, 95% plus, are actually wonderful, outstanding permanent residents and that the minister is wrong to try to label and generalize, giving the impression that immigrants commit a lot of crimes when we know that is just not the case?

[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.

[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--

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

She's just a left-wing hack.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she's a hack. She is a constitutional lawyer. The Minister of Immigration may not like her, but that is okay. He is entitled not to like everyone in Canada. We know that is a very large order.

This is what Ms. Jackman had to say in regard to clause 8, which the member is referring to: “I have no doubt that the public policy grounds will lead to denying people admission on the basis of speech”.

Whether the minister himself wants to recognize it or not, there are many who fear that the government is going--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am going to ask the hon. member to get to his question. I know other hon. members wish to put questions to the hon. member for Richmond Hill. Please go ahead with the question and we will get going.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the member not acknowledge that a number of excellent presentations were made at committee raising that concern, and that maybe the government should go further in acknowledging it?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoy the member's input at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, although I must confess that I do not agree with him too often. However, I am pleased to see that on occasion he puts partisan lines behind him and supports certain aspects of legislation, at least in this legislation.

Canadians are a generous and welcoming people. We have opened our borders and welcomed people from all over the world. Canadians have come from every nation around this planet. They are telling us, “Please keep criminals and fraudsters out. If we have a choice of who comes to Canada, please do not bring in the people who spew hate speech. We do not want them in our communities. We do not want them around our families. We do not want them around our children. We do not want criminals. We want law-abiding citizens to be our co-citizens living next to us, shopping with us and enjoying Canada”.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Richmond Hill personally to be a fair-minded and objective person. I am always disappointed when mischaracterizes the positions of the NDP, as he sometimes does, based perhaps on advice from the minister, although I am not sure who is giving him advice on this legislation.

My question relates to a very specific change in the law, the proposed change in Bill C-43 to remove the obligation of the minister to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds when dealing with the removal of foreign nationals.

I wonder if the member for Richmond Hill has considered the possible impact on children and families by removing that obligation. The current situation does not require the minister to allow people to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but the minister is at least required to consider the plight of children and immigrants.

I see that the member is getting more advice from the minister now, but has he considered the possible impact on families and children?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that I mischaracterized the NDP's position. The NDP's position has been very clear. New Democrats oppose every piece of legislation that we bring to the House, legislation that really speaks to doing what we are supposed to be doing to make Canada a better place in which to live, even though I happen to believe it is already the best country in the world to live.

To respond to the member's specific question, I do not think he understands what we are speaking about. We are talking about terrorists. We are talking about murderers. We are talking about people who spew hatred. Without any disrespect to the hon. member, whom I happen to like, I find ludicrous the thought of the humanitarian impact on the wives or children of such people staying around.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would just remind hon. members that during this time when we have five minutes of questions and comments, quite often there are a number of members who wish to pose a question or a comment to the member who just spoke but the members speaking take a bit more time than they might with their preambles. We know this is not a time for speeches, but a short preamble and a question or comment to the hon. member is great. That way more members will have the opportunity to pose their question or comment to hon. members. Therefore, I ask and encourage members in their questions and comments, and similarly other hon. members in their responses, to keep those concise and relevant and then more members will be able to participate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Miramichi.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this House today in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

As its name implies, this legislation would make it easier to remove dangerous foreign criminals from Canada and enhance the safety and security of all Canadians. Currently, foreign criminals can appeal their deportation if they receive a sentence of less than two years. Bill C-43 would restrict access to the Immigration Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board to those who receive a sentence of less than six months. This change would reduce the amount of time serious criminals may remain in Canada by 14 months or more, reducing their ability to delay their removal and commit more crimes on Canadian soil.

Serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is, in part, defined as a conviction for which a sentence of more than six months has been imposed. These changes are therefore more consistent with other provisions in our immigration legislation.

One high-profile case perfectly illustrates the glaring problem with our current system and why we need to further limit access to the IAD. Many Canadians are familiar with street racer, Sukhvir Singh Khosa, whose terrible crime and the infuriatingly slow removal process that happened afterwards were widely reported in the media. Hon. members will recall that in 2002, Mr. Khosa was convicted of criminal negligence causing death after he lost control of his vehicle and killed an innocent bystander while street racing in Vancouver. Obviously, this man was a danger to society having shown selfish and callous disregard for the safety of those around him. What was his sentence? It was a mere slap on the wrist in the form of a conditional sentence of two years less a day. With that one-day discount, he was able to delay his deportation for six years.

He was ordered deported from Canada in April 2003, but he was not deported until April 2009. It was the multiple levels of immigration appeals and the subsequent hearings before the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal that enabled him to delay his deportation for so long. First the Immigration Appeal Division dismissed Mr. Khosa's appeal and the Federal Court upheld that decision. However, the Federal Court of Appeal then overturned the Federal Court's decision and ordered the Immigration Appeal Division to provide him with a new hearing. It was at this point that the government said that enough was enough and appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, which, thankfully, allowed the appeal and restored the Immigration Appeal Division's original decision.

Under the current system, too many foreign criminals like Mr. Khosa have been sentenced to six months or more, but manage to game the system and delay their deportation for years on end, sometimes more than a decade, costing taxpayers money. Worst of all, many convicted foreign criminals have used the time they have bought appealing their deportation to reoffend, and sometimes commit even worse crimes. The fact these foreign criminals can freely walk our streets when they should have been sent home at the earliest opportunity should deeply disturb all Canadians.

Foreign criminals use appeals as a delaying mechanism and ordinary, law-abiding Canadians can only shake their heads in disbelief and disgust. Needless to say, when Canadians pick up a newspaper and read about dangerous foreign criminals who are still in Canada long after they have worn out their welcome, it erodes public confidence in both our justice and immigration systems. The bottom line is this: If someone is not a Canadian and commits a serious crime on our soil, that person should no longer have the privilege of living here. That is the law in Canada

The New Democrats and the Liberals think that deporting foreign criminals is somewhat unfair. They ask us to consider the hardships that the criminals and their families will face. Do these same critics ever stop to think about the hardships faced by the victims of these crimes? If they actually listened to the victims, they would be supporting the bill and not opposing it.

Victims' organizations across the country have voiced their support for Bill C-43. Sharon Rosenfeldt from the victim' rights organization, Victims of Violence, had this to say:

The government's action to date is that they have indeed listened to victims and to law-abiding Canadians who want our laws to differentiate between the majority of offenders for whom rehabilitation is a realistic option and the repeat offenders for whom the justice and correctional system is a revolving door, which does include foreign individuals who repeatedly break our laws....

We see Bill C-43 as a long-awaited piece of legislation which in part is designed to facilitate and make easier the entry into Canada for legitimate visitors and immigrants, while giving government stronger legal tools to not admit into Canada those who may pose a risk to our country. Most important to crime victims is the removal from Canada of those who have committed serious crimes and have been convicted of such crimes by our fair judicial system.

We agree with [the minister], who states that the vast majority of new Canadians will never commit a serious crime and they, therefore, have no tolerance for the small minority who do, who have lost the privilege to stay in Canada.

We also agree with [the minister] on due process and natural justice in the rule of law...that even serious convicted foreign criminals should get their day in court and that they should benefit from due process.

He agrees, as we do, that they should not be deported without consideration by the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, [that does not mean] they should get endless years in court and be able to abuse our fair process....

We strongly believe that if all the amendments in Bill C-43 are supported and implemented, the safety of Canadians will be further enhanced.

One of the few requirements for people to maintain permanent resident status in Canada is that they do not go out and commit a serious crime. We do not think that is too much to ask of people who are enjoying life in the greatest country in the world. With Bill C-43, we would streamline the process to deport convicted foreign criminals by limiting their access to the Immigration and Refugee Board's immigration appeal division. These measures would be tough but fair. We want an immigration system that would be open to genuine visitors, while at the same time preventing the entry of foreign criminals and those who would harm our country and denying them the ability to endlessly abuse our openness and our great generosity.

The bill would send a clear message to foreign criminals: If they commit a serious crime in Canada, we will send them packing as quickly as we possibly can.

The changes proposed in the faster removal of foreign criminals act would be reasonable, common sense measures that would ensure the safety and security of Canadians. I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-43 to help protect Canada's borders and Canadian society against those who pose a danger and take advantage of our great generosity.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her speech.

Our concerns are not about the criminals themselves, but rather how we will determine who is a criminal and who is not. Once again, the minister is giving himself discretionary powers. That is always our concern. This is not the first time this has happened.

How will we tell the good from the bad in this system?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that people who are not Canadian and commit a serious crime on our soil should no longer have the privilege of living here. That is the law in Canada. Our government wants safe streets and safe communities for all Canadians. Is this too much to ask of those visiting Canada? These are our tax dollars being spent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for the member.

Let us say someone came to Canada at age one, has now been in Canada for 18 years, and after their 19th birthday they make a mistake. They might have used false identification to get alcohol while down in the States celebrating the fact that they graduated high school with some of their friends, or maybe there was another incident.

Is it appropriate for that individual, who came to Canada at age one, to be deported and deprived of being with parents, siblings and others because they used false identification in order to be served alcohol or because they videotaped something at a movie theatre with their telephone? Is that an appropriate consequence?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question even though he asked a similar question just a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that it is a great privilege to become a Canadian. Therefore it is definitely not too much to ask anyone who is living in this country to refrain from crime. Our government is committed to helping keep our streets and communities safe.

I want to say at this time that Miramichiers and all Canadians will be shocked to learn that the opposition parties actually oppose the bill. They oppose the safety of our streets and our communities. It is hard to believe.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her wonderful speech.

I have been sitting in the House today and I keep hearing excuse after excuse from the opposition as to why someone should not be deported after committing a serious crime. I sit on the immigration committee, and I heard the same things again and again in the committee. The Liberal member for Winnipeg North even used this as an excuse: a lot of good people make some mistakes. Forgetting to put out the trash is a mistake. Committing a serious crime in Canada is not.

I just wonder whether the member for Miramichi would comment on why she thinks the NDP and the Liberals would rather support the criminals in this country than the law-abiding citizens and those who fall victim to crime?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is the same kind of question that all Canadians, and Miramichiers especially, will be asking. The opposition members will have to answer that themselves.

In our platform, we promised to expedite the deportation of foreign criminals, and our government has followed up on that promise by introducing the bill. Our government continues to do what is best for all Canadians. We must remember that while our government is working to do this and we have opposition to this, it is costing our country taxpayers' dollars.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just clearly, audibly, heard the member for Malpeque say twice, “They are a bunch of racists”.

This is disgusting and beneath that member, beneath any member of this place. I would ask that he stand and withdraw.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Members will know, of course, that these types of words and references are not helpful to civil debate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I withdraw.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. minister for his intervention and the hon. member for Malpeque.

Bill C-43—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, will put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and during which they can commit more crimes. For that reason it is very important this law be put in place to protect Canadians.

However, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Report Stage

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the hon. members appreciate the notice of the government House leader.

We will get started with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We only have two minutes. He will start and then he will pick up the remainder of his time when the House next considers the question before the House.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I think that title is very important.

As we all know, Canada has long been a destination of choice for immigrants. We have one of the highest per capita rates of permanent immigration in the world, and we accept so many immigrants that one in five Canadians today was born outside of Canada. In my riding of Mississauga—Erindale, 65% of my constituents were born outside of Canada.

I raised the issue of the bill just this last Sunday at a New Year's levee in my riding. There were 400 people in the room. I would say 300 of those 400 people were born outside of Canada. When I raised the topic of the bill, there was a standing ovation. This is what Canadians want us to do.

Canadians are generous and welcoming people, but they have no tolerance or patience for foreign criminals who abuse our generosity by fighting a futile battle to stay here long after they have worn out their welcome. Make no mistake, there are countless examples of convicted criminals who have done just that, including drug traffickers, murderers and even child abusers.

The faster removal of foreign criminals act would ensure that foreign criminals, who had been sentenced in Canada for serious crimes, cannot endlessly delay their deportation. It would do so by removing the right of appeal to the immigration appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board, which would help expedite the removal of anyone who receives a sentence of six months or more.

The legislation would also bar those who have committed serious crimes outside of Canada from accessing the immigration appeal division. By limiting access to the immigration appeal division, the government estimates that the amount of time certain criminals may remain in Canada would be reduced by 14 months or more.

Currently, a foreign criminal may be ordered deported if they could receive a maximum sentence in Canada of at least 10 years for their crime, or if they receive an actual sentence of more than six months. The problem is that under current law, as long as their sentence is less than two years, a permanent resident may appeal their deportation to the immigration appeal division, and if they lose that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary may wish to mark that spot and he will have eight minutes remaining for his speech, and of course the usual five minutes for questions and comments, when the House next considers the question before the House.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when I left off earlier I was telling the hon. members here that under the current law a foreign criminal may be ordered deported if they could receive a maximum sentence in Canada of at least 10 years for their crime, or if they receive an actual sentence of more than six months.

The problem is that under the current law, as long as the sentence is less than two years, a permanent resident can appeal their deportation to the immigration appeal division. If they lose that appeal, they may then apply for leave and judicial review of that decision to the federal court.

As a result, serious foreign criminals, even violent and dangerous ones, are often able to take advantage of a sentence of two years less a day to delay deportation from Canada for many months, even years on end. Not surprisingly, those serious convicted foreign criminals have all too often gone on to commit new crimes in Canada and to victimize even more innocent Canadians.

Let me give just one example of how convicted foreign criminals have made a mockery of our judicial and immigration systems, while endangering the safety and security of ordinary Canadians. As Canadians have read in the media, 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. One year later, he was convicted once again of assault. Just six more months passed and he had already faced yet another conviction for uttering threats.

Members can imagine where the story goes. In December 2005, Mr. 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 for uttering threats. Mr. De Florimonte was reported 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 immigration appeal division ultimately dismissed his appeal but he was able to further delay his removal once again when he asked the federal court to review the 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 was five years after he was initially reported for criminal inadmissibility.

Enough is enough. This has to stop. It is time to send a clear message to foreign criminals, such as Mr. De Florimonte, that if they commit a serious crime in Canada, we are going to give them a one-way ticket out of Canada as fast as we can. With Bill C-43, we are doing just that. We are putting a stop to convicted foreign criminals who rely on appeal after appeal in order to delay their removal from Canada during which time they continue to terrorize innocent Canadians.

Living in Canada is a privilege and we require very little of people to maintain their permanent residency. One of the very few things, however, that we do require is that they do not go out and commit a serious crime. We do not think that is too much to ask of someone who we have welcomed into our country with open arms. If people do commit serious crimes, they will get their day in court because everyone, even a foreign criminal, deserves that.

With Bill C-43 foreign criminals would still get their day in court, but what they will not get is years in court. Abusing our process is a desperate, last ditch effort to delay their removal from Canada. In other words, foreign criminals deserve due process but not endless process.

Shortly after its tabling, media commentary and editorials were enthusiastic in their support of Bill C-43. The Globe and Mail wrote that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism had made a convincing case for a new law allowing the swift deportation of convicted criminals. The tiny share of immigrants and refugees who lack citizenship and are convicted of serious crimes on Canadian soil forfeit their right to be here. Sun Media columnist, Lorne Gunter, meanwhile wrote that Bill C-43 is “so sensible it will probably surprise most Canadians that the new policy isn't already the law of the land”.

We think that virtually every Canadian would agree with the need to implement the fair and reasonable measures found in the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I am confident that my hon. colleagues in the House share this sentiment and will express this by supporting the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the government would be best advised to recognize that whether it is a Liberal member of Parliament or even a New Democratic member of Parliament, there is no one in the House who is trying to say that we should not speed up the process of getting rid of foreign criminals or landed residents who commit horrendous crimes.

In fact, if the government were really on top of things, there are many other things it could be doing, such as providing adequate resources. One of the examples that the government, and Conservative member after Conservative member, bring up is the Clinton Gayle incident, saying that if it were not for the appeal process that RCMP officer would still be alive.

I would like to make reference to an email that I received and would ask the member to comment on it.

Clinton Gayle did appeal a deportation order but lost. The immigration department lost his file and then failed to get the travel document. Gayle was not removed and he subsequently killed Officer Baylis. The department, not the appeal division, was sued by the police force for its negligence and the department settled the suit. The reason Gayle remained in Canada was because of the department's incompetence in his removal. That is the real reason.

Bill C-43 would not have, as many of the Conservative members are saying, made a difference or saved that RCMP officer.

The bottom line is that there are many other things the Department of Immigration, working with other ministries, could do that would ensure the criminals it wants to get out of the country would get out quicker, and these do not include the measures that would be taken in Bill C-43.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that it is not only Conservative members of Parliament who have been making this case about Clinton Gayle and Constable Baylis. In fact, The Globe and Mail said exactly the same thing.

The Globe and Mail said:

The infamous example of Clinton Gayle underscores the need for such legislation.

A Jamaican citizen who was convicted in Canada of multiple criminal offences, Mr. Gayle was able to remain in the country long after a 1991 deportation order, because of the immigration appeals process. In 1996, he shot two Toronto police officers, killing one of them.

The member will know that if Mr. Gayle had not had the opportunity to make the appeal in the first place, he would not have been in Canada and had the opportunity to kill that police officer.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Conservative Party.

In my riding, one of my constituents immigrated from Vietnam and moved to Quebec 32 years ago, when he was 8 years old. He and his brother came to Canada aboard a ship. His parents had been killed in Vietnam, so he was an orphan. He grew up here and not long afterwards, he was put in a reception centre because his brother could no longer take care of him.

Of course he learned a few things while he was living at the reception centre. He became a juvenile delinquent here in Canada and he was put in prison when he was 18. Now, this man, who is 40 years old and has six children, is being sent back to Vietnam. He does not even speak the language. He became a delinquent during his youth here in Canada. And he is going to be sent back to Vietnam

What is the member's position on that? Does he believe that this man is a foreign criminal or a Canadian criminal?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that he is not a citizen and he has committed serious offences.

However, what the member should know, if she has ever had an opportunity to read the Criminal Code of Canada, is that there are a number of hybrid offences, offences whereby the Crown can proceed by way of indictable or summary conviction offence. They are very serious crimes, crimes such as sexual assault, armed robbery, and the list goes on.

In order to ensure that justice is done swiftly, the Crown often chooses to proceed by summary conviction and, as members will know, they would then get a sentence of two years less a day and would then, under the current law, be able to remain in Canada despite the fact that they had committed a sexual assault, an armed robbery or some other serious offence such as that.

We are putting an end to that today with this bill and Canadians wish us to do so.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I will be voting against the opposition amendments proposed at the report stage, as they would prevent this important bill from becoming law.

While debating this bill the opposition members have claimed that it would affect every single one of the 1.5 million permanent residents in Canada. I agree with them. Every single one of those 1.5 million permanent residents would be safer because our government would be removing dangerous foreign criminals off our streets and out of our country more quickly.

Our government knows that a vast majority of newcomers to Canada are honest, hard-working and law-abiding. Because of this, newcomers, maybe even more than those born in Canada, want us to crack down on crime. What is more, immigrants are more likely to be victims of dangerous foreign criminals than those who are Canadian-born. Permanent residents would be safer, thanks to this bill and the actions of our Conservative government.

In recent days we have had the opportunity to listen to hon. members who are opposed to this legislation attempt to explain why they oppose this bill. The New Democrats and the Liberals are aghast at the idea of changing foreign criminals' ability to appeal a deportation to the Immigration Appeal Division for those sentenced to six months or more in prison from the current two years. There really has been no shortage of hypothetical examples detailing how this change will “go too far” and tear families apart because of minor crimes. It is very telling that while Conservative members have provided a dozen or more real-life cases to show why this bill is needed, the New Democrats and Liberals have not been able to identify one single real-life example of someone being sentenced from six months to two years for what they refer to as “a minor crime”. There has not been any, not one real-life case, to justify shocking opposition to this bill which is so needed to keep Canadians safer across our country.

The Liberal immigration critic from Winnipeg has been particularly vocal in stating that any young adult can find themselves in a situation where by accident they end up with a prison sentence of six months or longer. I point out that the president of the Canadian Police Association disagreed with him. In fact, the president made it very clear that receiving a six-month sentence in Canada is a benchmark that the person is a criminal, and usually a repeat offender. However, apparently the New Democrats and Liberals do not care what police associations or victims organizations have to say about this bill. They have completely ignored the massive support that this bill has received and that even the media have given it across Canada.

Let us take a look at what the New Democrats and Liberals deem to be minor crimes leading to sentences of six months to two years. They are assault with a weapon, breaking and entering, robbery, sexual assault and, in one case a few years ago, sexual assault of a senior citizen. This list goes on and on.

When the hon. members opposed to this legislation stand up and claim that changing the eligibility to appeal a deportation to the Immigration Appeal Division would potentially negatively affect innocent well-intentioned permanent residents, it is the crimes of the dangerous foreign criminals that they are actually defending. Make no mistake: these criminals who have been found guilty are also often repeat offenders, dangerous foreign criminals who should not be on Canadian streets.

Their victims are just as real as their crimes. They are innocent Canadians. They are families whose bank accounts have been emptied, who will never feel safe again in their own homes, or they are seniors who have been sexually violated in the most horrendous way. These victims are law-abiding Canadians who put trust in their elected representatives to protect them. The opposition members disregard for the rights of victims is lost in a cloud of rhetoric over this legislation, which they say would go too far.

Some of the hon. members across the way have expressed outrage that we are using a handful of extreme examples that are not representative of the actual people whom this bill would affect. Apparently 850 dangerous foreign criminals appealing their deportation every year, with 2,700 currently waiting for a decision on their appeal, is not a significant enough number for the opposition. I point out again that the Canadian Police Association disagreed with the opposition. Its president was shocked at how high this number is. When he appeared before the committee in strong support of this bill, he made it clear that this number is much too high, as it is also too high for law-abiding Canadians.

I am very disturbed by the NDP and Liberal attempts to defend dangerous foreign criminals. I am shocked that they have repeated in this House, in contradiction to what the police association has said, that a six-month sentence is not a serious crime. If it were up to the NDP and Liberals, we would be debating a bill entitled “the slower removal of foreign criminals act”, or “the keeping foreign criminals in our communities act”.

Our Conservative government is finally putting a stop to dangerous foreign criminals relying on endless appeals to remain free to make more victims of innocent Canadians.

Canadians are a generous and welcoming people to newcomers and the vast majority of them are honest and law-abiding, whether Canadian-born or immigrants to Canada. They have no tolerance for our generosity being abused.

With this legislation, we are fulfilling a campaign commitment to take a stand against a core problem in our immigration system, which is one that sees the welfare of dangerous foreign criminals given more consideration than their victims. The measures in this bill would end the current system that allows dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country for too long after their welcome has been worn out and they have made it clear they do not seek to contribute to Canadian society but rather to abuse it.

Our government is committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, is our commitment, put into action, to seek real results to keep Canadians safe.

The well-being of Canadians, their safety and security, is not a partisan issue. The integrity of our immigration system is not a partisan issue. Canada's ability to properly deal with those who victimize our citizens is not a partisan issue. These are real issues that Canadians from all walks of life, who have suffered and spoken clearly about, want us as parliamentarians to take action on.

I respectfully ask that the hon. members in the opposition consider the facts rather than prevent the passage of this bill. Please put the well-being of Canadians and the integrity of our immigration system first, and support Bill C-43.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while on winter vacation, I enjoyed reading Mafia Inc., a book that reveals everything about the big mafia bosses, including their criminal records. It also describes how these people came to Canada illegally, how they lied to Immigration Canada and how their activities engender crime.

This government claims to want to protect Canadians, but it is reducing the number of police officers, who are needed to put these people behind bars. This government also says that it wants to pass immigration legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous foreign bandits. These big-time criminals are not concerned by this law.

These big-time criminals will not be threatened by this law, which is just a smokescreen. It is nothing but a marketing ploy to make people believe that the Conservatives are tough on crime. In reality, they have not delivered the goods. None of the members opposite can guarantee that these people, these top criminals, will be deported.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member opposite is misleading Canadians. Bill C-43 is about removing foreign criminals who have been found guilty in a court of law for serious crimes against citizens in Canada.

I would also like to point out that there are documented cases, which have been debated here in the House, of actual foreign criminals. Jackie Tran was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. His order of removal was April 2004, but he was not removed until six years later. There are others. For example, with an order of removal for October 2007, the person was not removed until four and a half years later. On another order of removal for September 2003, the person was not removed until five years later.

Canadians across this country are tired of these ongoing delays in the appeals. I would ask the member opposite to support this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again I would appeal to government members that if they really want to do Canadians a service they should be investing more resources with Canada Border Services Agency and with regard to immigration. If they really want to try to deport the foreign criminals the minister continues to refer to, put the resources necessary so we can get them out of the country quicker.

Having said that, I want to ask the minister a very personal type of question. Imagine a three-year-old who comes to Canada as an immigrant. Some 17 or 18 years later, this individual graduates high school, goes to the United States to celebrate and uses false identification with his buddies because he wants to buy a drink. Because he gets a $200 fine or whatever it is, that individual, according to this law, would be deported without the right to an appeal. We know that--

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is complete nonsense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Even though the minister says it is complete nonsense, when I asked him the question to challenge it, he could not even answer, because he does not understand his own legislation.

My question for the member is why does she want to separate someone who might have three or four siblings, parents living in Canada--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver South has about 35 seconds.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does me a great service, but I am not the minister, unfortunately. We have a perfectly great minister here.

The real issue is that foreign criminals have been delaying their deportation for years and years, as I answered previously. The bill is to remove them faster, more effectively, more efficiently, so that Canadians can be safer in their own homes and in their own communities.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the time I have been given.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against the direction that is being taken with Bill C-43 and the Conservatives' attitude when this bill was examined in committee.

The Conservatives are incorrectly implying that we have certain motives. We will never support those who commit serious crimes, but we are concerned about this bill, which once again gives the minister more arbitrary power.

I would also like to remind members of the importance of democratic debate. The use of the time allocation motion, which is once again muzzling us, is a shining example of this government's closed-mindedness. The Conservatives have adopted a completely uncompromising attitude, which we also noticed in committee.

The implementation of Bill C-43 will make significant changes to the way newcomers to Canada are treated. It is inconsistent with the Canadian justice system, our country's precepts of compassion and our humanitarian mission. Many of the measures in this bill will have a major impact on the current system.

First, the government is intensifying deportation procedures by limiting the barriers that act as a counterbalance. On one hand, any crime carrying a sentence of over six months in prison will result in automatic deportation. The government is therefore imposing a double penalty because the prison sentence will be combined with deportation. The Conservatives have also introduced a logic whereby people are not allowed to make mistakes. That is a shameful attitude.

On the other hand, Bill C-43 puts an end to appeals in cases involving sentences of over six months, which goes against the principles of our justice system. What the government is telling us is that people are not allowed to make mistakes and that they will be deported. And, under this bill, their families will be deported along with them.

This bill also gives the minister discretionary powers without requiring him to be accountable or transparent. He will now have the authority to declare somebody a threat because of public policy considerations. The minister will be the only counterbalance to himself because of the lack of appeal process, and the concept of public policy considerations is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In addition, Bill C-43 indiscriminately lumps all of the consequences for misrepresentation together. As a result, whether the misrepresentation is intentional or not, the individual would be inadmissible for five years.

According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, not only is Bill C-43 inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also deprives people of fair consideration of their applications. It denies them access to the principle of fairness before the law and to an independent legal process.

Furthermore, the organization is critical of these new measures whereby someone who fought against an undemocratic regime would be prohibited from entering Canada. Would people like Nelson Mandela constitute a threat to Canada's national security? I doubt it.

A number of issues in this bill that we wanted to fix with our amendments are problematic. We pointed them out to the government, and we were backed up by witnesses in committee. We wanted the government to use common sense and look at the potential impact of Bill C-43.

By agreeing to go to committee, our parliamentary wing showed a willingness to be open and to compromise. We wanted to work on improving the bill. What we were asking for was warranted and realistic and would have improved the bill. Unfortunately, the government refused to listen to our suggestions and improve the bill. Instead of being pragmatic, the government insisted on justifying an ideology and regressive measures and on promoting division.

The Conservatives' statements have done everything to paint refugees and permanent residents as dangerous people, potential terrorists or people who come here only to take advantage of the system. These days, anyone who is not a full-scale citizen will not be recognized and will be considered by the Conservatives to be a foreigner with no room for error.

All along, the Conservatives have used extraordinarily rare exceptions to justify their bill, forgetting the majority of applicants, forgetting the people who will be directly affected by Bill C-43. When we expressed concerns about the impact of the bill, the government accused us of being soft on fraudsters.

When a witness stated that because the police in the country engage in racial profiling, Bill C-43 would disproportionately affect visible minorities, the expert was accused of siding with criminals. Our work in committee was constantly marred by these kinds of demagogic and poisonous comments.

This attitude must be brought to light and condemned. We wanted to debate the bill and discuss it. We were proactive and submitted proposals. But the government wanted to advance its political agenda. The Conservative ideology, which is focused on security, is helping create a system that functions by exception. This system will severely limit the fundamental rights of certain categories of immigrants.

We tried to help improve Bill C-43 while it was being studied in committee. We proposed nine reasonable amendments that addressed previous criticisms. Unfortunately, all of the opposition's amendments were flatly rejected.

In keeping with the ethical principles that guide Canadian parliamentarians, we proposed that the minister act transparently and report any decisions made through the use of his new discretionary powers. This request was rejected by the Conservatives. In so doing, the government refused to make the minister accountable to the people. It objected to the idea that the minister should provide details about the discretionary decisions he makes.

In accordance with the overarching legal principles of the Canadian system, we proposed reinstating the right to appeal, which Bill C-43 does away with. The Conservatives rejected our proposal, thereby rejecting a fundamental principle of our justice system: judicial appeal.

The Conservatives seem proud of the fact that the minister will have the power to review cases, but they neglect to mention that, as a result, he will be judge and jury. To limit the scope of Bill C-43, we suggested that the government clarify the notion of public policy considerations, which is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We wanted to clarify the factors involved in the minister's discretionary decisions. Once again, the Conservatives refused to listen to reason.

Lastly, we wanted to clarify the procedure for interviews requested by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We suggested that the government allow individuals to be accompanied during these meetings. The government has done away with the right to legal advice and the presence of a lawyer. We wanted a fairer process for applicants, but the Conservatives rejected our amendment.

In conclusion, our party will not support Bill C-43 because of its impact on the immigration process, the government's unwillingness to consider our amendments and the fact that this measure is at odds with our legal system. Contrary to what the Conservatives would have everyone believe, we do not support criminals. We support immigrants and Canadians. The Conservatives' stubborn determination to go it alone, to decide unilaterally, to avoid debate and discussion, will have consequences. The first of these will be a defective policy whose flaws will soon become clear.

Like Bill C-31 and Bill C-38, Bill C-43 is yet another stain on the Conservatives' immigration record. Once again, the government's actions are out of touch with reality and it is failing to consider the consequences of its actions. Once again, this government has refused to improve its laws in the interests of immigrants and Canadians. Once again, this government has taken a backward approach that conflicts with the interests of Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find it a little strange that the member would describe the bill as “demagogic”, since her speech was entirely demagogic and had an unbelievably ideological tone. I do not understand why the NDP are so confused when it comes to legal permanent residents—immigrants who come here and obey our laws—and criminals who should be deported.

I would like to answer the NDP member across the floor. He said that the Rizzuto family could easily enter into Canada. I would ask the member to read clause 17 of the bill currently before us, Bill C-43. This clause would deny entry for members of the family of somebody who is inadmissible under section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This includes people involved in organized crime. If they want to deport citizens who have committed crimes with that family, that is different. Maybe the NDP would like to introduce a bill to revoke the citizenship of criminals, but that would be a little extreme.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, is it not my colleague who should answer that? Can he? Okay.

Let us talk about demagoguery. I think this government is very demagogic. It has proven this many times. When the fundamental elements of debate are not allowed, when the substance of bills cannot be addressed in this House, when we are subjected to so many time allocation motions, that is what I mean by demagoguery.

Since Bill C-43 was supposed to be discussed in committee, since we should have been able to debate it and propose amendments, which instead fell on deaf ears, of course, then we should have been able to debate it again here in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative member after Conservative member has stood up and cited the Clinton Gayle case. For the record, Gayle did appeal a deportation order, but lost. The immigration department then lost his file and then failed to get the travel document. Gayle was not removed and he subsequently killed Officer Baylis. The department, not the appeal division, was sued by the police force for negligence, and the department settled the suit. The reason Gayle remained in Canada was the department's incompetence in his removal.

I am wondering if the member would agree with members of the Liberal Party by making a statement that if the government really were sincere and genuine in wanting to get criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship quickly removed from Canada, it would be far more effective to put in the resources that are necessary for our border control and immigration, so that these types of incidents do not occur. This legislation would not have prevented the killing of an RCMP officer, contrary to what members of the Conservative Party say.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He alluded to the department's incompetence, and I completely agree with him on that.

And yes, there are not enough resources, not just for CBSA services, but also for services to the public. In this file, cuts are causing huge problems with the processing of cases.

Once again, rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a small minority of foreign criminals, why are the Conservatives not helping new Canadians to be reunited with their family members?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, rather than getting to the main portion of my speech I will make some references to quotes of various people. They are not the members in the House who have been exchanging comments back and forth, but people who are independent of the House.

The first one is Martin Collacott of the Centre For Immigration Policy Reform, while he was on the Roy Green Show, on June 23, 2012. He said:

What that means is that someone who we should be getting rid of immediately can stay for months and years, even decades by a whole series of appeals that they launch. And if you've been found guilty by a Canadian court, convicted and served time, surely that’s enough to say that you’re a danger to Canadian society.

This is not a question of due process. Due process has already happened. With respect to deportation and appeals, people have been convicted and they have appealed. That appeal period may have expired and they are perhaps spending time in jail.

He said that someone should not be given months and years of appeal to prevent their removal. Why would he say that? Many would say it is simply because what it does is allow them to continue to offend and commit crimes, so we have to look at the victims in Canadian society.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, had this to say:

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.

While testifying before the immigration committee on October 31, 2012, he went on to say:

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.

That is a good point.

Sharon Rosenfeldt of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime had this to say:

Cutting short foreign criminals’ opportunity for lengthy appeals will go a long way in minimizing and preventing the re-victimization of those innocent Canadians who are the victims of foreign offenders.

We are talking about those who have gone through due process, have been convicted and are to be deported. Then they go through another process, an appeal process. We had many examples cited here today where it has taken years and years to dispose of that case. Bill C-43 eliminates one aspect of that, to shorten the time and to get those people deported when they should be.

The fact is that most Canadians would support that kind of action. The opposition should do that when the bill comes up for the vote shortly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 10.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19 to 21, 23 and 24.

The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 12, 13, 18 and 27.

The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 25 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 26.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 10. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 4.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #603

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 10 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the vote on the first motion to the current motion with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree and we will be voting yes, with the addition of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree and will be voting yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc will be supporting this motion.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #604

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19 to 21, 23 and 24.

A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 8.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the vote on the first motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

The Bloc votes yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees and is voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #605

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19 to 21, 23 and 24 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 8. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 22.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the vote from the first motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, agreed and voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees and votes yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #606

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 8 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 22 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 12, 13, 18 and 27.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the vote on the first motion to this motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes. I would point out that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh must be added.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, agreed and voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees and votes yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #607

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 12, 13, 18 and 27 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 25.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 26.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 1 to this current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes. I would again ask that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh be added.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois votes yes.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees and votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #608

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 25 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 26 defeated.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #609

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.