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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference on the bill that I did not detect from previous presenters, but now am led to believe the NDP does not support its passage, which explains why its members continue to speak to the bill. I respect that.

There was another bill before the House, which the NDP opposed but wanted to see sent to committee. For that bill, Bill C-43, they voted in favour of it being sent to committee with the idea of getting amendments brought forward at committee to make it a better bill.

Does this mean the position of the NDP members is that, even if the bill is sent to committee and they succeed in getting some of those amendments, they still would not support the bill because they are voting against the bill even being sent to committee?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will first wish my former Liberal counterpart, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, well on his newest mission.

Yesterday was probably an auspicious day for the former astronaut to launch a Liberal leadership campaign. A member of my staff has told me that November 28 was Red Planet Day. While the member's ideas and proposals will no doubt be well suited for the red party, it is yet to be determined whether they will actually be better suited for Mars or for Earth. We will wait and see.

The hon. member for Papineau might want to be aware of the House leader bump. My first NDP counterpart after the election now resides in Stornoway. Meanwhile, I want to welcome and congratulate the new Liberal House leader, the hon. member for Beauséjour. I look forward to continuing the very positive relationship that I enjoyed working together with his predecessor. I genuinely and sincerely wish his predecessor the best of luck.

I am sure that the new House leader will be keen to hear that we will resume the report stage debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, this afternoon.

After almost 4,600 votes in the House and committee on our 2012 economic action plan, I am pleased to say that we are in the home stretch of implementing our budget for this year.

Canadians will soon see important measures such the hiring credit for small business extended, greater tax relief for investing in clean energy, and strengthened registered disability savings plan rules.

To the great chagrin of the New Democrats no doubt, Canadians will still not see within that budget a $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax or the $6 billion GST tax grab that I know they wish to see implemented. It does not matter how many hundreds of amendments they put forward, we simply will not accede to their tax and spend initiatives.

The House will consider Bill C-45 on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

We will resume second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, tomorrow. We will get back to second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, if we have time.

On Thursday and Friday next week, we will work through a number of bills before the House, including: Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which was reported back from committee this morning; Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act; Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, should it be reported back from committee; and the other bills I have mentioned, if we have not had a chance to wrap up those debates.

Finally, for the benefit of the House and particularly committees meeting on the supplementary estimates, I am planning for the last supply day of this fall to be on Monday, December 10. I expect that I will get back to the House next week at some point to designate that date formally.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was extremely disappointed yesterday to see the New Democrats and Liberals vote against the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This is yet another example of the New Democrats and Liberals putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians.

Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please update this House on Bill C-43 and the government's commitment to deport foreign criminals out of Canada more quickly?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Chairman, first of all, thanks to all members of the committee for your consideration of Bill C-43, which I understand has just been adopted here at committee. I look forward to its return to the House for report stage.

Chairman, I'm here to present to the committee my department's supplementary estimates (B) for the current fiscal year.

In the last few years, we've implemented many positive reforms to our immigration system. I don't quote from the media often, but I will make an exception today. The Globe and Mail said that these reforms were “badly needed, long overdue, and well executed”. They've helped to reverse unacceptably long wait times, reduce crippling application backlogs, crack down on fraud and abuse of the system, and improve the timelines of the services we provide.

While these reforms have better focused our system on fuelling Canada's economic growth, there's still a lot more to be done. Our number one priority remains economic growth and job creation. Our immigration plan next year will further this objective by maintaining high sustained levels of immigration to help address labour shortages and the aging of our society.

Now, as tabled last month in this year's “Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration”, we plan to admit between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents next year, for the seventh consecutive year. The 2013 immigration plan will also build on our economic success by bringing in more of the world's top talent. This is important, because to ensure that our immigration system benefits our economic future, we need to welcome those who are ready, willing, and able to adapt to Canada's labour market, especially in those occupations and regions where we have skills shortages.

In other words, we have to make sure the skilled immigrants we choose are the ones our country needs, and are the most likely to succeed when they get to Canada.

I will outline some of the transformational changes we are making to bring about a “just in time” immigration system that is fast, flexible and responsive to Canada's economic and labour market needs.

First, as you know, we are improving our flagship immigration stream—the federal skilled worker program—with new criteria to select skilled workers who will be better positioned to succeed in our economy. The new criteria will help to select younger skilled workers proficient in English or French who will be able to hit the ground running and contribute to the economy for a longer number of years before retirement.

Also, we'll be ensuring that educational points are given based on their relevance to Canadian educational standards. This is a very important change. It means that applicants will be required to have their educational credentials assessed by a designated and qualified third party to determine their value in Canada at the time they submit their application. I anticipate that we'll release the list of designated assessment bodies early in the new year.

Our goal is to have these improvements and the points grid in place at the beginning of 2013. In addition to these changes, even more dramatic ones are expected in 2015. We will be moving from a supply-driven system where anyone can apply and we passively process all applications, to a demand-driven system that actively selects applicants based on the needs of employers and others, better meeting Canada's economic needs.

As proposed in the economic action plan for this year, we're developing as well an expression of interest management system, which is essentially a big pool of skilled workers who are pre-qualified to immigrate to Canada. Under this system, if applicants meet certain eligibility criteria, they'll be placed in the pool, from which they could be selected based on identified needs in the Canadian labour market.

Under such a system, there would not be an obligation to review all applications, nor in the order in which they are received. The department would invite only selected candidates to apply for a visa to come to Canada. Individuals who are not selected after a period of time would be removed from the pool, so application backlogs would not accumulate.

This would be a win-win situation for potential skilled immigrants and for the Canadian employers. Skilled workers would experience a simplified and expedited immigration process.

Canadian employers, provinces, territories and the federal government would have access to highly-skilled workers and future citizens in a more timely fashion.

Yet another change is the creation of a new federal skilled trades program to make our immigration system more accessible for skilled tradespersons in the construction, natural resources, transportation, manufacturing, and service sectors, which are in high demand. I'm very excited about this program, and we look forward to launching it at the beginning of the new year.

The proposed new program will create a means for skilled tradespersons to be assessed based on criteria geared to their reality rather than academic degrees, putting more emphasis on practical training and work experience and job offers, rather than academic post-secondary education. It will be in place early next year.

Another immigration program we will be improving is the immigrant investor program. Our goal in this regard is to best determine how we can encourage more active foreign investments in the Canadian economy.

We need an investor program that brings in real capital, to ensure we have long-term growth in jobs and the economy. And so we are exploring ways in which to attract immigrants who want to invest in Canada's future by making significant investments in private sector innovation and growth.

We also hope to tap into the entrepreneurial spirit that so many immigrants seem to have by developing new approaches for a start-up visa entrepreneur program, which we plan to implement in early 2013.

The idea is to proactively target a new type of immigrant entrepreneur, people who have the potential to build companies that can compete on a global scale and create jobs for Canadians.

Finally, through the Canadian experience class, we're also making it easier for skilled workers who are already in Canada on a temporary basis to stay here permanently, including foreign students who have completed their degrees. As you know, this program is now our fastest growing, and I think it's a great success. We plan to admit 10,000 people as permanent residents through the CEC next year.

I just welcomed our twenty-thousandth person admitted as a permanent resident since the program began in 2009. He's a bright young guy in Toronto named Gaurav Gore, who is from India. He did his MBA at the University of Toronto and was hired by one of our big banks. He got his permanent residency in—get this—eight months. Therefore, the system is actually working. He's making over $70,000 a year. He speaks perfect English and is in his early twenties. This guy is representative of what's going to happen with this program. It's very exciting.

That sure beats the old experience of having someone wait in a queue for eight years, come here, and end up driving a taxi, being frustrated. I'm very excited about these reforms, as I know many of you are.

With that, let me conclude with my department's 2012–13 supplementary estimates (B), which include net new appropriations of $1.663 million, including $1.12 million in funding to eliminate the backlog of pre-2008 federal skilled worker applications. As many of you know, we reached an unacceptable number of backlogged applications. It was up to 640,000, as you noted in your study. Today, we are left with a backlog of barely 100,000 in the skilled worker program.

Today we are on track. By the end of next year, we will have the ability to process new federal skilled worker applications upon receipt, process them within the year instead of nearly a decade later, which was the unacceptable situation in the past.

As we have embarked on these changes, we have been happy to see that Canadians from all different sectors have shown strong support for these reforms. What we envision is a system that can help us meet our economic and labour market needs much more quickly and efficiently, allowing us to invite immigrants to realize their potential, fully contribute to our economy, and that's what it's all about.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention, and I and my officials are available to respond to any questions.

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

Could we have a recorded vote, please.

(Bill C-43 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the conversations we have had here and to the testimony that we have heard…

I'm persuaded that we could improve the report by ensuring that the minister does have to respond to Parliament, at least in the annual report, declaring how many times he's exercised his negative discretion.

This is I think in the spirit that we have been discussing here at the committee, as well as what we've heard from some of our witnesses. From my point of view, it's an attempt to increase the minister's accountability while making sure that what we do is consistent with other aspects of the act, and making sure that we don't breach concerns of security and other things that the government has expressed.

The amendment specifically seeks to amend Bill C-43 in clause 8, by adding at line 2 on page 3, the following:(4) The report required under section 94 must include the number of declarations made under subsection (1) and set out the public policy considerations that led to the making of the declarations.

Again, I think I am in tune with my colleagues on this side and from what I've heard from across the way on the concern that we make sure the minister is following the time-honoured requirement to be accountable to Parliament in exercising his discretion.

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

I move that Bill C-43, in clause 33, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 10 to line 3 on page 11 with the following:

respect of a person who is convicted or charged with an offence before the day on which section 24 comes into force.

The intent of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is to ensure that the elimination of due process with respect to access to an appeal is not retroactive but instead can only apply to convictions issued after the day on which Bill C-43 comes into force.

This is a very, very moderate amendment. It puts into practice a fundamental rule of law, and that is that you don't reach retroactively to inflict pain.

Last week the Conservative side called immigration lawyer Richard Kurland to testify. Mr. Kurland is generally supportive of the government's approach with C-43, but he did offer this criticism: “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, and 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.”

Our amendment could expedite the process, which we've heard the need for so many times.

I would respectfully ask that committee members support this very reasonable amendment to clause 34.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 10 with the following:

respect of a person charged with an offence before the day on which section 24 comes into force.

This ensures that the provisions in Bill C-43 apply only to those charged after the bill takes effect. It would be unfair for Bill C-43 to apply to those charged before the bill even comes into effect.

We had as a witness, Mr. Kurland, whom we all know. 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.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43, in clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 8 with the following: ment of at least six months that is not a conditional sentence and was not committed by a foreign national who proves by any means that he or she has habitually resided in Canada since the age of 13 or younger or has lawfully resided in Canada for more than 20 years.

In attempting to explain this, I'll try to stick to the script and then provide a few comments after that, Mr. Chair.

This change would exempt those living in Canada since the age of 13 or younger or those who have resided in Canada for at least 20 years from being affected by the deportation change of two years to six months. This not only addresses issues surrounding the punishment of long-term permanent residents, but it is modelled after the French legislation.

I'd like to point out that the government routinely references other European countries that have similar laws and it would make sense that we incorporate this one as well. It also removes conditional sentences from being considered.

First off, I would like to say that the Liberal Party does not agree with the change from two years to six months for deportation. The amendment we are putting forth is only to improve, if every so slightly, a severely flawed clause. I would like to point out that Richard Goldman sent correspondence last week citing the Alberta Court of Appeal decision. All of us should be very much concerned. The ruling that he attached indicates that Alberta does not consider immigration implications when regarding a decision. I think that's a very important thing to recognize as a committee. In fact the decision states in paragraph 23, “Furthermore, it would be a strange and unfortunate legal system wherein a non-citizen could expect to receive a lesser sentence than a citizen for the same crime. No such distinction should be countenanced.”

I bring this up because in deliberating the six-month sentence many government members incorrectly contend that all criminal courts take into consideration immigration when making a decision, and therefore, the deportation change to six months is seen as being warranted.

As many of you have now seen the correspondence, as it was sent to all committee members, this notion that immigration matters are considered across the board in Canada is incorrect, and I fear it will cause members to pass a clause that ultimately is based at the very least on a glaring falsehood.

If the government is truly intent on passing clause 24, I ask that they at least consider this amendment that would put us more in line with what France has in their legislation.

Further to that, Mr. Chairperson, I want to pick up on two observations I have made.

I believe not taking into consideration conditional sentences is a serious mistake. I sat on and chaired a youth justice committee and am very familiar with different forms of dispositions that are given to people. Quite frankly, conditional sentences are something which I think do have a role to play in our judicial system, which I respect as being independent. I believe it would be a mistake to incorporate conditional sentences in this because a judge has in essence taken into consideration the severity of a particular crime when he or she hands down a conditional sentence. I think we need to make note of that particular fact. I think other presenters have also noted that.

The other thing is that I modelled the whole 13 years and under 13 based on what was being suggested in France. I have personal opinions on that issue, but at the end of the day, I think we've had presenters who, and I would have thought most members of the committee would recognize that for young people who come to Canada at two years of age and have been living in Canada for 20 years or more, Canada for all intents and purposes is their home.

To consider deporting, because of what some might determine is a serious crime, someone who came to Canada as an infant.... An example I used quite often during the committee process is that of the 20-year-old man or woman who uses false identification to cross the border, for whom the ramifications of doing so ultimately could see that person deported.

I believe that would take place. If that's not the case, I would love to see an actual legal opinion saying that it is not the case. There is a discussion that we should be having here in committee before we start to say that anyone under the age of 13 is going to be deported because of what the government or some people might say is a serious crime.

We even passed legislation saying there would be a minimum sentence for six pots of marijuana. It has been pointed out that this is only for trafficking purposes. There are a number of young people who, in their teenage years, traffic some marijuana in high schools. We know it's going on there. Once they hit university, quite often they will stop; hopefully they find different ways to make income. We're not going to condone that sort of behaviour, but the reality is that it does happen. This would receive a minimum sentence.

Is it proper to deport someone in a situation like this, when they grew up in Canada? I think not, and equally I think not in the example I used in regard to using false identification in order to gain entry to the United States and have a drink to celebrate with their peers who have graduated from high school or a university.

I hope members will seriously contemplate supporting this particular amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chairperson, this is the last one that I'm going to be moving in this category.

I move that clause 23 of Bill C-43 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 7 with the following:

conditions on the person, taking into account their needs and public safety.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I move that clause 22 of Bill C-43 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 7 with the following:

tions on the person, taking into account their needs and public safety.

The comment that I made on the previous amendment would apply to this particular amendment. If you would like, I could repeat it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I will be a little quicker on this one. I move that Bill C-43 in clause 19 be amended by replacing line 15 on page 6 with the following:

prescribed conditions on the person, taking into account their needs and public safety.

These changes would ensure that the needs of a foreign national and public safety are taken into consideration when applying conditions rather than implementing minimum conditions. Some individuals may have a mental or physical issue that should be considered and that may affect the type of condition required.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-43, in clause 18, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 5 to line 7 on page 6 with the following:

42.1. The Minister may, on application by a foreign national, declare, within 90 days following the receipt by the Minister of the application, that the matters referred to in sections 34, 35, and 37 do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of the foreign national if they satisfy the Minister that it is not contrary to the national interest.

Mr. Chair, just for clarification purposes, foreign nationals found to be inadmissible under sections 34, 35, and 37 should be allowed to apply for ministerial relief, given the bar to making an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. H and C applications do not delay someone's removal from Canada. Further, this amendment gives the minister 90 days to render a decision.

In his testimony, Angus Grant said that the decisions are not made in a timely fashion with regard to a request for ministerial relief. In fact, he said that these cases sit for several years and sometimes even a decade before a decision is rendered. Therefore, we believe that a timeline from the minister to render a decision is necessary in order for the ministerial relief provisions to function properly.

To be clear, we are not saying that all those inadmissible under sections 34, 35, and 37 should be granted admissibility, but that, because they have no recourse through H and C grounds, they should have a final step to seek admissibility through a ministerial relief. Many witnesses spoke of how broadly sections 34, 35, and 37 are interpreted, and how individuals with very low-level involvement are caught.

This amendment is simply a final step where ultimately the minister makes the final decision on a case.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 64. This meeting is televised. We're continuing the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-43.

We have our guests from the department who were here at the last meeting. Thank you again, ladies and gentlemen, for coming to help us and to answer some of our questions.

We have finished clause 17, so we are now on clause 18, and Liberal amendment LIB-8.

Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.