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.

Report Stage

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Bill C-43--Time Allocation Motion

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like for us to talk about Bill C-43 but instead we are talking about a motion to limit debate. We therefore must talk about debate procedure. I think the Standing Orders are clear. It is a matter of relevance and the member should stick to the issue of the motion rather than the content of Bill C-43.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34 was debated for several hours at second reading, and much longer in committee, where we heard from a dozen witnesses. Some amendments were adopted by the committee. Furthermore, we again debated the issue in the House yesterday. I was present at all the debates.

I would like to point out once more that the main part of the bill was a Conservative election promise made in the last election. We had the opportunity to discuss this idea with the general public, which gave the government a mandate to make Canada safer, especially by dealing with serious foreign criminals. That is what we are doing.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this 31st time allocation motion, the government is setting an appalling record of denying democracy.

The minister just mentioned balance. We agree with some of the points in his bill, Bill C-43, including for instance that it is only natural for our society to try to avoid becoming a haven for criminals who are looking for one. One thing is clear: these measures need to be very focused, and that is not the case with Bill C-43. A number of amendments were proposed, including some by the Green Party leader that the Bloc Québécois supports.

In order to ensure that his bill is balanced, is the minister willing to see to it that his government adopts those amendments? Thus, Bill C-43 could then achieve what it set out to do: ensure that Canada does not become a haven for criminals, but without preventing innocent people from entering Canada and Quebec.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I can answer and say that it is quite clear that the NDP and the Liberals intend to keep this bill from ever passing. They have proposed a number of flimsy amendments to Bill C-43 as a stalling tactic.

Be it in this Parliament or any other parliament, there must be a balance between debate and passing bills that are important for the general public. This government will work to protect our communities. I am disappointed that the New Democratic Party does not support that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this debate right now is about process. The government's House leader has failed Canadians in terms of respecting the proper procedures of the House of Commons. Generally speaking, we bring in legislation and allow for a free and open debate of all members of Parliament from all political parties. Time and time again, the government has brought in time allocation to prevent individual members of Parliament from engaging in debate that is critically important to their giving due diligence to the legislation before them, whether Bill C-43, the Canadian Wheat Board, the pooled pension legislation, the gun registry, the back to work legislation, the financial system review act, budget bills, CP, Canada Post, Air Canada, Bill C-31 and the list goes on.

The Conservative government, unlike any other government in the history of the chamber, uses time allocation as a way to ram through its legislation. My question is for the government House leader or the Prime Minister. How does he justify to Canadians his continuous abuse of the privileges of members of Parliament by not allowing us to stand up and voice the concerns of our constituents and of our—

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.