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.

[Murielle Brazeau, Chairperson, Social Security Tribunal of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today to address the committee on Bill C-43, and more specifically on clause 252 regarding the appointment of members to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.

The tribunal began its operations on April 1, 2013, and is mandated to provide a fair and impartial quasi-judicial process for appeals under the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

It was created to simplify and streamline the appeal processes by providing a single point of contact for all those appeals. All decisions are made by one decision-maker called a “tribunal member”, who is appointed by the governor in council after a rigorous competency-based selection process.

At the outset on April 1, 2013, the tribunal had 28 full-time members, including me. The three vice-chairpersons were appointed in May and June 2013, and to this date, the tribunal has grown to 73 full-time members. The government recently announced the appointment of 21 part-time members, who will help the tribunal process its large volume of appeals.

Bill C-43 would allow the appointment of an unlimited number of full-time and part-time members and would remove the time limits that are in effect in the current legislation for part-time members. These new provisions will enable the government to appoint additional members as needed in either of the tribunal's divisions, depending on the fluctuation in the caseload over time.

I will now give you an overview of the tribunal's structure and where things stand with our caseload. The tribunal has two levels: the general division and the appeal division.

The general division has two separate sections: the income security section and the employment insurance section. The second level, the appeal division, hears cases from both sections of the general division, employment insurance cases and income security cases. It is therefore important to recognize that the tribunal deals with four very different caseloads.

I would like to start with the general division's income security section. When we began operations on April 1, 2013, more than 7,200 appeals were transferred to us from the Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals. Roughly 24% of these appeals have now been concluded. Approximately 5,500 new appeals have been received since April 1, 2013. Overall about 2,000 cases have been concluded to date.

We are currently developing assumptions and performance expectations for members to estimate when the backlog will be completed with the number of members we have and the remaining caseload. The magnitude of these income security cases represents the greatest challenge to the tribunal.

Second is the general division employment insurance section. The board of referees continued to issue decisions until October 31, 2013, at which time about 320 appeals were transferred to us. The majority of these cases are now awaiting a ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency or a decision from the Tax Court before the tribunal can deal with them. As of September 30, 2014, close to 5,000 new EI appeals have been received, and nearly 3,000 have been concluded to date. Almost half of the remaining cases are part of group appeals and are being dealt with separately. The other half are assigned to members and are at various stages of their progress.

At the appeal division we have two different caseloads: income security and employment insurance. Let's start with the appeal division's income security caseload. On April 1, 2013, more than 460 appeals were transferred to us from the Pension Appeals Board. By the end of September 2014, around 95% of these appeals had been concluded. For the majority of the remaining appeals, a hearing date has already been set or the appeal has been postponed at the appellant's request. As of September 30, the appeal division had received 258 new income security appeals of which 163 have now been completed.

Now that the majority of cases transferred from the Pension Appeals Board are concluded, we are focusing our efforts on these new cases, which we expect to address within a reasonable period of time.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. We appreciate your input. We've had a very robust discussion over the last little while on Bill C-43.

I have a couple of questions that I would first of all like to address to Mr. Askari.

As you know, our new small business job credit will lower EI premiums by 15% and save small businesses more than $550 million over the next two years. First of all, do you agree that this is real money that small businesses can use to defray the cost of hiring new workers and to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities?

[Martine Dagenais, Associate Deputy Commissioner, Economic Policy and Enforcement, Competition Bureau]

Thank you, Roger.

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

As my colleague Roger has mentioned, the Competition Bureau has a role in informing regulators and policy-makers on competition matters, and we take this role seriously. In the past two years, the Bureau has made submissions to the CRTC in connection with its wireless code of conduct, as well as its reviews of broadcasting and television services, wireless roaming rates, and wholesale mobile wireless services, among others. These are important sectors of the economy, and a focus of the Bureau's competition promotion efforts to bring about more choices, lower prices and higher quality goods and services for consumers.

Accordingly, the Bureau is pleased by the amendments to the Telecommunications Act proposed in Bill C-43 that would allow the CRTC to share confidential information with the Bureau when that information is relevant to competition issues that the CRTC is considering. The amendments will bring the Telecommunications Act into line with federal legislation that regulates other industries, such as legislation governing matters before the Canadian Transportation Agency or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

This information sharing would enhance the Bureau's ability to analyze telecommunication markets and result in more substantive submissions to the CRTC on competition matters. The CRTC would therefore be able to make more informed decisions in telecommunication proceedings on issues relating to competition.

The Bureau understands the importance of competition in the telecommunications market to consumers, and it will continue to advocate in this area for the benefit of all Canadians. We believe the amendments proposed in Bill C-43 will further the objectives of both the CRTC and the Bureau with respect to this important sector of the economy.

Thank you again for inviting us today. We will be happy to answer your questions.

[Christianne Laizner, Senior General Counsel, Legal Sector, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Christianne Laizner. I'm the senior general counsel and executive director of the legal sector of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. With me today is Chris Seidl, who is the CRTC's executive director of telecommunications.

We are here today to answer your questions concerning Bill C-43, the budget implementation act 2, which proposes to grant the CRTC expanded tools and responsibilities.

The CRTC is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that regulates Canada's telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. We operate in a transparent manner, and with the goal of upholding the public interest, so that Canadians have access to a world-class communication system. Our decisions are based on the evidence provided to us by the individuals, companies and organizations—including some on this panel—that participate in our public proceedings.

Mr. Chair, we recognize that this committee must complete its review of Bill C-43 quickly, and we are happy to accommodate its schedule. We would ask the committee, however, to keep in mind that our responsibilities as a regulatory body set us apart from the other members of this panel.

Let me now turn to Bill C-43. As you know this bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act to expand the powers of the CRTC. We believe that three of these amendments will greatly enhance our ability to achieve the objectives that Parliament has entrusted to us.

The first would allow the CRTC to issue monetary penalties to any company that violates the rules of the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Chair, this is an important addition to the CRTC's tool kit. By granting us the power to issue monetary penalties, Bill C-43 would give us a new tool that would act as a deterrent to anyone wanting to breach the legislation or our regulations.

Let me be clear on our use of monetary penalties. It is not our aim to turn to these penalties first. Our experience enforcing the national do-not-call list and Canada's anti-spam legislation reminds us that the best enforcement approach should be determined by the particular facts of the case. Sometimes education or a warning may bring about compliance and other times a more forceful approach is needed. The option to use monetary penalties to promote compliance gives us greater flexibility to tailor the right enforcement approach to each situation.

I'll now ask my colleague, Mr. Seidl, to address the other proposed amendments.

[David Schwartz, President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada]

Good morning. Thank you.

I'm not going to read my prepared remarks with the illusion that they're different from what you've already heard, because it's exactly the same talk that Amrita Singh provided, so I'll keep it brief.

I'm David Schwartz. I'm a partner at Smart and Biggar. I'm the president of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. I'll speak a little about the Patent Law Treaty and how it's handled under C-43. My colleague Steve Perry is going to speak about industrial design, essentially the same thing you've heard, round two.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today.

IPIC is the professional body in Canada, the association of patent agents, trademark agents, and lawyers practising in all areas of IP.

We're very pleased to speak to you today, and we are very supportive of the government's work on PLT. It's a good treaty that helps prevent minor mistakes from resulting in loss of rights in patents.

I'll emphasize a couple of quick details. Much of the key stuff is left to the regulations; we know that and we want to emphasize the same two points you've heard.

First, this business about reinstatement of deadlines. Currently under the law, as we've heard, you have an absolute right, you pay a fee, and you revive an application if a deadline is missed. This happens routinely. The way the PLT is being implemented, there's a due care standard. Has the applicant, the patentee, exercised all the due care required by the circumstances? We're hopeful that in the regulations there is going to be a period where this isn't going to be required, and that you'll be able to revive the case as a right, pay your fee, and carry on. We don't know what “due care” means. The patent office is going to have to assess due care. Later on the Federal Court can review due care to see if it's been properly exercised.

It creates a lot of uncertainty, and I expect there's going to be a good opportunity in the regulations to fix a case without due care, and this opportunity will be added later. But certainly we're of the view that putting this in the mix early on is problematic and creates a lot of uncertainty.

Second, as we heard, intervening rights are new to the patent law. We've never had a situation where, during a temporary period of abandonment, someone else could start practising the invention, thinking there will be no patent; and then later on the patent is revived. The law is going to require that these intervening rights involve a good faith use. There's language in here about having made serious and effective preparations to commit the infringing act.

These are all things the courts are going to have to explain to us in detail. It creates a lot of uncertainty. Again, we're hopeful that at the regulation-making step, there's going to be an opportunity to revive an application or reinstate it and cure the missed deadline before there's a possibility of intervening rights. It will provide certainty, and it's a reasonable thing to do. I expect that's what we'll see when the regulations are promulgated, and we look forward to working on that.

Third and last, we're very pleased the government is taking an interest in IP. That's a great thing. IPIC is doing backflips over that. We're very happy to see the government working on this. There's more to be done. We've made proposals about the protection of confidential communications between agents and their clients. There's a law of double patenting, and we look forward to working with you on these things in the future, if the opportunity arises.

I'll turn the floor over to Steve, and thank you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President, Canadian Airports Council]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act contained in Bill C-43, which is before you today.

My name is Daniel-Robert Gooch, and I am the President of the Canadian Airports Council. The 45 members of the council include all non-government airports that are part of the National Airports System.

There is good reason for rigorous consultation on initiatives and legislation. It helps the Government of Canada avoid unintended consequences. Airports have a concern that this relatively small bit of legislative text is broadly enough written that it could have an unintended negative impact on our nation's airports.

We understood that there would be a legislative move to provide the Minister of Transport with new regulatory authority to intervene in matters around the development and operation of new, small, private aerodromes. There are valid reasons for the minister to have new regulatory powers in this area, most notably to ensure the continued safety and security of Canada's skies. However, this language goes beyond the domain of private aerodromes and should be tightened, we contend. In light of all the possible implications of it, this kind of legislative exercise should be handled cautiously.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we would suggest, is the more appropriate venue for this. It is designed to consider legislation of this nature so that its implications can be properly considered and the language amended as needed to better align with the stated objectives.

We do not believe that the Government of Canada wants to turn back the clock on the national airports policy or revert back to taking control of our nation's airports and the significant financial responsibility associated with their development and operation; however, the expanded powers being considered in Bill C-43, if implemented, could be interpreted as a move in this direction.

Air transport in Canada is a $35 billion industry that supports 140,000 direct jobs. Airports have an important role in the Canadian economy, and we must tread carefully. Airport authorities plan and implement key development programs costing from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is the breadth of the language of this legislative initiative that is of primary concern to Canada's airports. As drafted, the bill encompasses all airports in the country and, if approved, would confer broad new regulatory authorities for the minister, including, we would suggest, in areas that are explicitly devolved to local airport authorities under the national airports policy.

As drafted, the bill also would give the Minister of Transport the ability to halt development or expansion of an airport if the minister makes a determination that such a project would not be in the public interest. While there may be some who would suggest the minister should have such a role in airports, this would represent a major policy shift back to the pre-national airports policy era in terms of the role of the federal government in airports. That policy entailed a very deliberate depoliticization of decisions like this.

We are also very concerned that the public interest as outlined in the proposed amendments is vague and subjective. Is it, we would ask, truly the government's intent for the Minister of Transport and her successors to once again be at the heart of decisions about airport development and be an arbiter in matters that were designed to be handled locally? We do not believe so, but we are concerned that the changes proposed by this language could be used that way by future governments and/or interest groups. We want first and foremost to ensure all of the possible implications are properly explored and considered.

Another notable consideration is that a broad review of transportation policy is already under way through the review of the Canada Transportation Act being conducted by David Emerson and his esteemed panel of advisers. This is the more appropriate forum to consider major transportation policy changes.

That is why the Canadian Airports Council is asking the committee today to amend the legislation to take into account small private aerodromes that are important to the department or not to integrate the wording in question until it has been examined in more detail.

Thank you for your time. I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. MacDonald, did you have anything to add to that, or is it the same thing? Okay.

Clauses 172 and 173 were actually in a previous private member's bill, Bill C-585, which the government—I guess I can't say the government—kept on not being debated multiple times when it came up for debate. Now changes that are not really budgetary in nature are showing up in this omnibus budget bill.

Did your department provide any advice to the minister as to how to proceed to include these measures in Bill C-43, and if so, how long has CIC been involved in drafting clauses 172 and 173?

[Daniel MacDonald, Chief, Canada Health Transfer (CHT)/Canada Social Transfer (CST) and Northern Policy , Department of Finance]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Daniel MacDonald. I am the chief of Canada health transfer/Canada social transfer and northern policy group in the federal-provincial relations division at the Department of Finance.

I am here today to answer any technical questions you may have related to the changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, under part 4, division 5 of Bill C-43 as they relate to the operation of the Canada social transfer itself.

The Canada Social Transfer (CST) is a federal block transfer to all provinces and territories in support of three broad areas of social policy. The first is post-secondary education, the second is programs for children, and the third is social assistance and other social programs.

In 2014-15 the total CST transferred to all provinces and territories is almost $12.6 billion. It has grown at 3% annually since 2008-09 and will continue to grow at 3% annually at least until 2024 when the next review of the CST legislation will take place.

These funds are allocated to provinces on an equal per capita basis so that each province receives its population's share of the total amount of the transfer. With respect to accountability, provincial and territorial governments are fully responsible for the design and delivery of programs in the areas supported by the CST, and are accountable to the residents and legislatures, not the federal government, for outcomes achieved and dollars spent.

Starting in 2007-08, the federal government enhanced the transparency of its support by notionally allocating the total transfer across each of the three priority areas: post-secondary education, social programs, and children's programs. These notional allocations are not binding, explicitly recognizing provincial and territorial government flexibility to invest in these areas according to their own priorities.

With respect to conditionality, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act currently states that, in order to receive their full CST funding, provinces or territories must not impose minimum residency requirements for social assistance.

If a province violates the minimum residency prohibition stated in the FPFAA for the CST, the act requires the Minister of Employment and Social Development to engage the province in the withholding process described in statute. If the minister concludes that the province is not in compliance, the minister must then refer the matter to the Governor in Council who may direct that the province's CST amount be reduced by whatever amount it considers appropriate.

Should this proposal pass as part of Bill C-43, provinces will able to impose a minimum residency requirement on certain foreign nationals, as described by my colleague earlier, without triggering the statutory withholding process for the CST.

No other elements of the CST will be affected. In particular, the total transfer amount and the provincial and territorial equal per capita cash allocations will be unaffected if the provinces and territories impose minimum residency requirements consistent with the current proposal. There is no link between the legislated CST amount and allocation and the actual social assistance expenditures of a province or territory.

Thank you, and we look forward to any questions you may have.

But first, I will pass to my colleague Caitlin Imrie.

[Matt de Vlieger, Acting Director General, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Matt de Vlieger. I'm the acting director general of international and intergovernmental relations at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I'm accompanied by Mr. Daniel MacDonald. He's the chief of Canada health transfer/Canada social transfer and northern policy at Finance Canada.

We are here today to answer any technical questions you may have related to the changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, under part 4, division 5 of Bill C-43.

Overall, the proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, or FPFAA, as we'll probably be referring to it today, seek to provide provinces and territories with greater flexibility to introduce minimum periods of residence before most foreign nationals can access social assistance in their jurisdictions.

Provincial and territorial governments have constitutional jurisdiction over social assistance and the proposed amendments fully respect this jurisdiction. lt is therefore up to each province and territory to determine the eligibility for social assistance benefits. This also means that, should they choose to introduce a residency requirement for foreign nationals, provinces and territories would determine the length of the residency period.

Currently, provinces and territories cannot impose a minimum period of residence on the receipt of social assistance without a reduction in their Canada social transfer payments. The proposed measures would provide provinces and territories with greater flexibility by removing this impediment with respect to foreign nationals.

Just to be clear, these changes do not apply to Canadian citizens; permanent residents; protected persons, and by that we mean protected persons as refugees; and victims of human trafficking who hold valid temporary resident permits.

Under the proposed changes, should provinces and territories choose to introduce a residency requirement, most foreign nationals could be subject to a minimum period of residence. This would include temporary foreign workers, international students, visitors, and asylum claimants.

It is important to note that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to obtain a visitor visa, or a study or work permit, all foreign nationals must demonstrate that they can support themselves and their dependants financially for the duration of their stay. The proposed amendments align with that requirement.

In effect, these measures would provide the provinces and territories with some additional flexibility to establish minimum periods of residence for foreign nationals to qualify for social assistance, which is in their jurisdiction. If they do so, it would mean that they wouldn't have a reduction in their Canada social transfer payments. They provide provinces and territories with additional tools to shape their social assistance benefit regimes should they choose to take advantage of them.

I look forward to your questions, but I'd like to first turn the floor over to Daniel MacDonald, from the Department of Finance, to add a little bit more context on the Canada social transfer.

[Lise Lebel, President, Fondation Katherine Beaulieu]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

The organization I am representing today is the Fondation Katherine Beaulieu. Our primary mission is to provide awareness and education to people about the consequences of driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs.

We provide lectures and information kiosks as well as booths to measure blood alcohol concentration. In the near future, we would like to further develop our support for families. It was therefore important for us to be able to make a presentation here so that we can highlight some important amendments in Bill C-32.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, victims of criminal acts should also have rights, but just which rights are they? The Charter speaks of life, liberty and security of the person. Clearly, to no insignificant extent, a number of victims lose these rights entirely after a criminal act in which they were unfortunately involved.

Under the Canada Evidence Act, the spouse of a person charged is not obliged, in common law, to testify against that person. How is it that, still today, we are subject to that shameful kind of law, based on very old decisions that set so-called precedents? Is it not high time to see that justice is done in all fairness, to level the playing field and, most of all, to show respect to all the victims who are constantly experiencing the repercussions of the crimes that have been committed?

To clarify the situation, you should know that the spouse of an accused person cannot currently be compelled by a prosecutor to testify in a criminal trial involving that spouse's husband or wife. This is the case even if the testimony is crucial to the prosecution of serious charges, such as murder or impaired driving causing death or bodily harm. Of course, there are certain exceptions to that rule.

Our organization agrees with the amendments proposed in Bill C-43, which obliges spouses to testify in all cases. These amendments reflect a systematic trend towards providing crown prosecutors with access to all relevant evidence. Of course, we would not be the only country to adopt this new rule because other countries, such as Australia, have already done so.

Let us not be taken in. We all know that offenders, assisted by their lawyers, of course, use all possible means to try to make a mockery of justice. That does not include all the occasions on which they perjure themselves during their testimony in order to improve their chances of a discharge or to reduce the penalty to be imposed on them. The reality is that horror stories are heard in courtrooms each and every day. Victims are too often relegated to the background in the administration of justice.

With the excuse that offenders have rights, victims are kept in the dark about the circumstances of the crime; a number of them will never know the truth. With the excuse that criminals have rights, all possible evidence is never submitted to the court in its entirety. Let us no longer let criminals use their spouse as a free pass that allows them to stay ahead of their victims.

When a crime is committed, do not forget that the most odious act is not the act itself; it is in not recognizing that we committed it, that we, and only we, are responsible and that nothing, no one, can take responsibility for, or try to conceal, our errors.

Above all, let us not remain silent in the face of the moral and financial repercussions that victims must face day in, day out. For the most part, they have always been decent, fair and law-abiding. After each day in court, they return home bruised even more because, once again, the system has given them nothing.

There will be those who tell us that each Canadian citizen has the right to be tried in a just and fair way, whatever the cost. The reality is that everyone's weekly salary is chopped up in order to pay the costs that the guilty incur. Moreover, each victim has to absorb a part of the financial imbalance caused by the crime they suffered.

Did you know that a study published in 2011 estimated the real costs of crime at about $99.6 billion, of which 83% is assumed by victims?

Our judges rarely order financial restitution to be paid to victims, except in the cases of material loss or theft: they consider that offenders are not able to take on such a requirement because they lack the means to do so. However, our correctional system always leans towards rehabilitating criminals. The talk is to successfully reintegrate them into society so that they can become law-abiding citizens once again.

The reality is that criminals have always had the benefit of much more support from our system than victims receive. They are supported until the very end of their sentences in order to improve as much as possible their chances of regaining their independence. With those optimal conditions, the offenders' ability to obtain credit should improve with time so that they would be able to compensate their victims.

With Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, victims might have the right to ask the court to study the possibility of ordering restitution and, if the restitution is not paid, to have the order considered a civil court judgment. Would it not be appropriate for offenders to be required to periodically deposit amounts of money for the benefit of their victims?

Would that not be a good way to institute a form of restorative justice for everyone's benefit, for the benefit of our society? The financial assistance from the offender could allow him at the same time to take some responsibility for the mistake he made. I myself suffered the loss of my child in a traffic accident, so you will understand that my suffering will never be reckoned in dollars.

However, the reality is that, since that fateful day, I have had to rebuild my life in terms of the financial losses I have suffered since. Going back, going back to a comfortable life, is impossible because, too often, life breaks us for ever and leaves us only with the bare minimum we need to keep going. Often, that takes the form of several years of hard labour, days of sacrifice that amount to nothing, because someone somewhere made the decision to flout a basic rule of life, to respect others.

Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

In the 30 seconds I have left, let me say this. Last year we passed Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, and I think it speaks a little to this bill as well, because there are deterrents in here for those who obtain...we can clearly revoke the citizenship of those who obtained it in a fraudulent manner. They need to disclose who they are before they come here, because we believe that Canadians have a right to know that their neighbours, people whom we allow into this country, are not going to perpetrate crime or be a danger to their families, their children, around their schools, and in the communities we live in. So I appreciated your comments on that as well.

Thank you very much.

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, there are a number of areas that I would like to outline. They fall into legislative changes, and there have been a number of those. Then there have been a number of other activities that have been undertaken, which have been useful.

If we go back to Bill C-10, which received royal assent on March 13, 2012, it gave the CIC minister discretionary authority to instruct officers not to issue work permits to those whose situation could make them vulnerable to abuse or exploitation, including sexual exploitation or human trafficking. It was a major change for us that I think was very positive.

Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, limited the reviews mechanisms for certain foreign nationals on grounds of serious criminality.

Regulation 4(1) was amended in 2010 to deal with bad faith relationships and gave officers more discretion, more room to move on ways that they could refuse applications. Previously, it had to be that the applicant was entering into the marriage both for immigration purposes and the marriage was not genuine. That level of proof changed.

Also there was an expanded and strengthened spousal sponsorship bar, which changed, and I made reference to that in my opening remarks, that anyone convicted of an indictable offence involving use of violence would be barred from sponsorship.

In October 2012, there was the introduction of the conditional permanent resident status for certain sponsored spouses.

All of these have been significant changes.

On top of that, we've had a lot of work to do with the settlement program and greater awareness of those who are working with new arrivals in Canada so that they are better prepared to deal with some of the issues that come about. There have been major outreach activities as well. I've mentioned the “Welcome to Canada” and “Discover Canada” guides, which are very well used and are quite explicit about some of the issues there.

We have assistance for victims of human trafficking and special means to deal with that. We have special programs for refugees, for women at risk in the refugee program. We've done quite a bit of training with our staff as well, so they are more sensitized to these types of issues and are better prepared to deal with them.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts —Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate serves as a chamber of sober second thought to review legislation. I just want to highlight three pieces of legislation that have gone through this House over the years that the Senate has defeated, amended or reviewed.

For example, setting aside one's views on the difficult issue of abortion, let us look at what happened to Bill C-43 during the time of Mr. Mulroney's government. It was defeated in the Senate. It was the bill that would have restricted abortion in this country. The Senate defeated Bill C-43. Otherwise, today in Canada we would have had restrictions on abortion. Therefore, I would ask members opposite who have strongly held convictions on this whether that was a role that they would have seen as useful as played by the Senate.

More recently, after the last election, the government introduced, as part of its electoral commitment, Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. It sailed through this House of Commons, and it got to the Senate. Suddenly the members of government and the senators realized that there were problems with respect to national security in the bill. Therefore, the Senate introduced an amendment which then forced the bill back to this House. The amendment was adopted by this House, the legislation received royal assent. That gap, that shortfall in the bill, was addressed by the Senate of Canada.

More recently, as I mentioned before, Bill C-290, that did not receive a standing vote in this House of Commons and received only one witness at committee, the very proponent of the bill, did not receive sufficient scrutiny and oversight. The Senate is currently doing its work in that regard.

Those are just three examples of the important work that the Senate has done over the years in its role as a chamber of sober second thought to review legislation.

There is a another reason why the Senate serves a useful function. That is, its role as an investigative and research and deliberative body. In the history of the Senate back to the 1960s and 1970s, the investigative work of the Senate into social policy became integral to the development of Canada's modern social safety welfare net. The development of the Canada pension plan and the Canada Health Act and the development of policies involving social transfers to the provinces for health care, education, post-secondary research and development were all influenced by the work that the Senate did over the years. More recently, the work that the Senate did on mental health influenced government and House of Commons decisions on legislation, policy and funding for mental health concerns. The Senate does the same thing as royal commissions, public inquiries and external task forces, but it does so at a lesser cost than those royal commissions and in a much quicker and more timely manner.

There is yet another reason why the Senate serves a useful function. It is the same reason why in over 50 states around the world there are bicameral legislatures: the Senate serves to provide a check and balance, not just on the majoritarianism of the lower chamber in this House of Commons, but also on the executive branch of government.

I would like to quote Sir Clifford Sifton. He was a Canadian minister at the turn of the 20th century who helped open up western Canada for the waves of immigration that settled the great Prairies and produced the powerhouse of energy and agriculture that we see today. Here is what Clifford Sifton said in the book The New Era in Canada in 1917:

No nation should be under unchecked, single-chamber government.... It must also be remembered that, under our system, the power of the Cabinet tends to grow at the expense of the House of Commons.... The Senate is not so much a check on the House of Commons as it is upon the Cabinet, and there can be no doubt that its influence in this respect is salutary.

The check that the upper chamber provides on the executive branch of government, something that many Canadians have been increasingly concerned about over the last 30 or 40 years, is a useful function. In fact, modern North American institutions are based on Montesquieu's doctrine of the division of powers as a way to best achieve outcomes in society, and the way to best achieve justness and fairness in society.

His division of powers principle is quite simple. We needed to move away from the error of the absolute rights of kings and dictators, where they held all the power, to a system of government where power was diffused. We needed a system where power was not concentrated in a single place, in the Prime Minister's Office, the cabinet or the executive branch of government, but diffused among the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The Senate, in a bicameral system of government, serves that end of the division of power. It serves that end of diffusion of power. It serves that end to provide a check and balance on the concentration of power in one place. That is why, as I said earlier, there are 50 countries around the world with bicameral legislatures.

In addition to these reasons why the Senate serves a useful function, let us talk about the practical, political realities of abolishing the Senate. The reality is that Canada exists today in part because of the Senate. It was the deal that brought the provinces and colonies before Confederation into the federation.

In fact, when we read the Debates on Confederation, it is clear that colonies like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec would never had joined this federation had it not been for the Senate. They made it clear they were worried about the rapidly growing populations in Canada West, now Ontario. They were worried about being subsumed by the majoritarianism of a rising Ontario. That is why they wanted the upper chamber to serve as a protector of their interests, whether they were regional in nature, reflecting smaller populations, or linguistic, reflecting the francophone realities in many parts of the country.

Many of those provinces, legislatures and national assemblies would not agree to the abolition of the Senate. They would see it as a diminution of their voice here in our nation's capital.

The political and practical reality is that abolition of the Senate is not something that is going to happen. It is not something that we could easily reopen without addressing the other demands that were made during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, those divisive debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s. There are many more things on the table. If we went to a Dominion-provincial conference on first ministers to talk about the abolition of the Senate and whether or not we believe that would require the 7/50 amending formula or unanimity amongst Canada's 11 legislatures, the point is this: it would be opening a can of worms that no one in the House would want to open.

In particular, I ask members from Quebec on both sides of the House what they would expect the Province of Quebec to demand, with respect to the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society or the recognition of Quebec's nationhood. What would they expect in terms of the demand for a veto on the part of provinces for any future changes to the Constitution? What would they expect when terms of the original Meech Lake demand completely devolve immigration to the provinces and relinquish federal control about who comes into our country and who is accepted to be a citizen?

It would reopen the debate about who gets the power of appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. There are all the sorts of issues that certainly would be reopened for those who advocate the abolition of the Senate. Therefore, for a practical reason, abolition is not really something that we can pursue, nor is it something that I support. It is also something that we cannot do through the back door.

The Constitution of this country, with its written and unwritten aspects as they have been interpreted by rulings of the Supreme Court, is the basic law of this country and we must respect that Constitution. We must respect the way it needs to be amended. We should wait until the Supreme Court renders its judgment in the reference case that the government has asked it to consider.

Mr. Speaker, while I believe in a bicameral Parliament, while I believe that we need a lower and upper chamber for the reasons I have just outlined, I also believe that the Senate needs to be reformed. We need to have term limits. My suggestion to my fellow parliamentarians is that we should have term limits based on the life of a Parliament. Therefore, instead of setting a fixed term limit of eight or nine years, we should base it on a Parliament. When a Parliament is dissolved for the purposes of a general election, that is when senators should seek re-election. We might want to go to a system where a senator serves for the life of two or three Parliaments before seeking re-election, but I strongly believe that we need to have a system where there a limit on the length of time a senator can serve. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will give us some guidance in that respect.

I also believe that we need to have popular consultations or elections of senators. That is incredibly important. That way we can provide Canadian citizens the accountability they are seeking for the upper chamber.

We need to do this thoughtfully. We cannot do it willy-nilly. There are unintended consequences if we proceed too rapidly and too rashly. If we are to proceed with term limits and an election of senators based on the court's ruling, then we also need to strengthen this very House of Commons.

In Ontario, the province from which I come, we have 24 senators. In Ontario, unlike Quebec where senators serve at large, if 24 senators run in province-wide elections we could see up to six million or more voters voting for a senatorial candidate. In that situation it is not inconceivable that a single Senate candidate could win an election with four million, five million or more votes, dwarfing the number of voters and constituents that members of this chamber represent. Accordingly, when those senators who have the legitimacy of being elected with some three million to four million votes confront the House about what should be done with certain pieces of legislation, we need to think about strengthening this House of Commons to ensure that the increase in the power of the Senate, because of term limits and elections, is reflected also in an increase in power of this part of the legislature, the House of Commons. This would ensure that the people's place that is represented by 308 members here today has an effective and continued voice as the primary centre of power in our nation's capital.

For all those reasons I believe the Senate serves a useful role. I believe members should vote to ensure its continued operation. While the institution is not perfect, and while those who have made mistakes should be held to account, let us ensure that our institutions remain strong to respond to the future challenges that Canada faces.

Standing Committee on Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. House Leader of the Official Oppositionfor raising this point of order yesterday, objecting to the unusual procedures that were accepted within the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the clause-by-clause treatment of Bill C-60, the 2013 omnibus budget bill.

Prior to his point of order, I was struggling with a dilemma: I was certain there was an effort to undermine my rights as an individual member of Parliament and yet there had been no formal challenge. I was not sure how to approach this, Mr. Speaker, and to put before you the ways in which I found that procedure unacceptable. I really very much appreciate that the official opposition saw fit to raise its concerns that those procedures and the procedures adopted--novel procedures, mind you--before the Standing Committee on Finance did not comport to parliamentary rules and practice and went beyond the mandate of the committee.

I agree with all the points made by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and by the member for Winnipeg North, on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Before getting down to the particulars of the current situation, I wish to review some fundamental principles related to the matter before you, Mr. Speaker.

In essence, what you are asked to adjudicate here is an effort by a powerful government party with the majority of seats in this place to eliminate what few rights exist to influence legislation in the hands of only eight members of Parliament belonging to two recognized national parties, myself, on behalf of the Green Party, and members here for the Bloc Québécois, plus two members currently sitting as independents.

Within this group, the government party's efforts are aimed only at the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois. We are the only members to have submitted amendments at report stage in the 41st Parliament.

The appropriate balance between the majority and the minority in proceedings of the House is, as Speaker Milliken noted, a fundamental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be providing the written copy of this presentation to you so that I will not have to read out loud all the citations.

The following passage is very apt. Although Speaker Milliken was dealing with a situation with a minority Parliament, the issues before him of balancing the rights of the minority and the majority are the same. I quote from Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 29, 2007:

At the present time, the chair occupants, like our counterparts in House committees, daily face the challenge of dealing with the pressures of a minority government, but neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

Continuing:

Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course.

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our great parliamentary tradition, principles best described by John George Bourinot, Clerk of this House from 1890 to 1902, who described these principles thus:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.

As I noted yesterday, in particular, in your ruling related to the member for Langley's question of privilege, you said:

...[an] unquestionable duty of the Speaker [is] to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

And you cited, with approval, these words from former speaker Fraser:

...we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

The last quote is from your ruling of December 12, 2012, which bears directly on the matter at hand. In that ruling, Mr. Speaker, you dealt with an objection raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to, inter alia, my presentation of amendments at report stage. The hon. government House leader presented a proposal that all my amendments at report stage should be grouped and one motion selected as a “test motion”, and only if the test motion was adopted would any of the other amendments be put to the House.

Your ruling was clear, Mr. Speaker. You cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 250, which states:

[I]t remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

And you added:

The underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square and, in counterpoint, of allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon.

You ruled then, Mr. Speaker, that my amendments at report stage on Bill C-45 could stand and be put to a vote in the House. You also set out some circumstances that would provide a potential procedure to provide me and other members in my position with a fair and satisfactory alternative to amendments at report stage.

In my view, the government House leader is now attempting to do indirectly that which he could not do directly. It puts me in mind of the finding of Mr. Justice Dickson in that landmark Supreme Court case of Amax Potash, in which Mr. Dickson said:

To allow moneys collected under compulsion, pursuant to an ultra vires statute, to be retained would be tantamount to allowing the provincial Legislature to do indirectly what it could not do directly, and by covert means to impose illegal burdens.

I again underline that as the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has put before us, the actions of the finance committee were ultra vires, and the whole effort here is to do indirectly what it could not do directly. I am speaking of the Conservative Party's efforts to suppress the rights of minority members.

It offends principles of fairness to use the superior clout and power of a majority government to crush the few procedures found within our rules and traditions to which I, as an individual member, have a right to recourse. It is clear that the effort being made by the finance committee on Bill C-60 is a continuation of the strategy-by-stealth of the government House leader's to foreclose the democratic rights of members, which was attempted in November of last year.

For the remainder of my argument, I would like to canvass two areas of facts that are relevant to the specifics of the question before you, Mr. Speaker. First, was the procedure adopted by the finance committee in conformity with your ruling of December 12, 2012? Second, have the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament offended the rules by failing the tests of “repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage”?

Dealing with the second point first, I have moved amendments at report stage on the following bills, and I will state how many amendments per bill: Bill C-10, 36 amendments; Bill C-11, 11 amendments; Bill C-13, one amendment; Bill C-18, three amendments; Bill C-19, three amendments; Bill C-31, 23 amendments; Bill C-316, five amendments; Bill C-38, 320 amendments; Bill C-37, one amendment; Bill C-43, 21 amendments; and Bill C-45, 82 amendments.

What is immediately obvious is that the number of my amendments was directly proportionate to the legislation proposed by the government. Only on the two omnibus budget bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, did I propose a relatively large number of amendments. There were many amendments, because the omnibus bills involved changes to multiple laws in a dramatic and transformative fashion. The amendments I proposed were all serious; none were frivolous. They were not of the kind, for example, put forward by the opposition of the day on the Nisga'a treaty, in which multiple amendments were mere changes of punctuation with the goal being slowing passage of the Nisga'a treaty.

The amendments I have put forward have even gained favourable commentary from some government members. On Bill C-31, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said, “I appreciate the member's evident concern”, speaking of me as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, “and the fact that she takes the deliberative legislative process very seriously”.

On Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said, “I compliment her for her substantive approach to this legislation”.

On Bill C-43, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

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.

In summary, the amendments I have put forward in the 41st Parliament have never been frivolous. Were they designed to slow passage? Not at all. Even on the day we began the marathon session of votes on the amendments to Bill C-38, I approached the Prime Minister personally and asked if any compromise were possible. I told him I would be at his disposal, that if one or two amendments might pass, perhaps the rest could be withdrawn, and that I was open to suggestion.

My goal throughout was serious and grounded in principle. My constituents care about these issues and these bills. I am working tirelessly in their interest. I have never engaged in preparing and presenting amendments for the sake of, as the government House leader has suggested, political games or delay for the sake of delay.

Having worked in the Mulroney government and in public policy work in Ottawa dealing with federal governments, federal ministers and federal laws since 1978, I have personal experience with what used to be the normal approach to legislating in the Parliament of Canada. This particular administration is the only one in our history to enforce rigid discipline on its members in legislative committees. It is the first administration in Canadian history to resist any changes in its legislative proposals from first reading to royal assent. Even the errors that are discovered prior to passage are protected from amendment until subsequent bills correct earlier drafting errors.

Worsening this abuse of democratic process, virtually every bill in the 41st Parliament has been subject to time allocation. If time allocation were not applied, in the normal round of debates, eventually members in my situation, who are seen as independent for my rights and privileges, although I sit here as a Green Party member, would be recognized and would participate in the debates. However, due to time allocation, there is never an opportunity to speak at second reading, report stage or third reading. With time allocation, there is never an opportunity for members in my position to make a speech unless another party cedes a speaking slot.

As a matter of practical reality, the only way to have a speaking opportunity in such time-constrained circumstances is to have amendments tabled at report stage. This approach of the current Conservative administration of rejecting any and all amendments, while simultaneously abbreviating debate opportunities, is a perversion of Westminster parliamentary tradition. It is a new and hyper-partisan approach to the legislative process.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is my duty to work to resist this new, contemptuous approach to legislating. The ability to table amendments at report stage and to offer the entire House an opportunity to improve bills before third reading is even more critical when the legislative committee process has ceased to function as it did in all the time of all the speakers before you.

Now I turn to the question, Mr. Speaker, of how the finance committee applied the suggestions contained in your ruling of December 12, 2012. I note that the chair of the finance committee is never anything but personally fair, and I mean nothing personal against all members of the finance committee. I assume that this entire stratagem emerged elsewhere than from the members of the finance committee themselves.

I note that you suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there are “opportunities and mechanisms that are at the House's disposal to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of all members” in a “manner that would balance the rights of all members” and that “...members need only to remember that there are several precedents where independent members were made members of standing committees”. Those are all quotes from your ruling in December.

Finally, you suggested this:

Were a satisfactory mechanism found that would afford independent members an opportunity to move motions to move bills in committee, the Chair has no doubt that its report stage selection process would adapt to the new reality.

From these comments it is clear that your direction suggests that an effort might be made to engage members with rights of independents to enter into a discussion about how arrangements could be reached that would be, in fact, satisfactory. To be “to the satisfaction of all members”, your ruling implicitly requires that the suggested opportunities and mechanisms be discussed and accepted by all concerned. Further, you suggested that temporary membership was possible and that members should be able to “move motions”.

None of that occurred. I am attaching a written copy of all the correspondence between me and the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, which I will provide to the table. As you will see, there was no discussion or offer of co-operation. The “invitation” contained in a letter of May 7, 2013 left no room for discussion. The attached motion of the committee was supported only by the Conservative members of the finance committee but not by the official opposition or the Liberal Party members.

The letter, and particularly the motion itself, had the tone of a unilateral ultimatum. My response was to ask for temporary committee membership for the duration of clause-by-clause review. This request was rejected in the letter of May 24, 2013.

As the various sections of Bill C-60 had been distributed among several committees, I attempted to attend all the hearings relative to my amendments. However, committees were meeting at the same time in different locations throughout the parliamentary precinct making it impossible to get to each one of them. I did attend meetings of the industry, finance and the foreign affairs committees prior to clause-by-clause. I asked for permission to ask witnesses questions and was denied in the finance and foreign affairs committees. I was allowed a three-minute opportunity to pose questions in the industry committee. To be blunt, my opportunities were not close to equivalent to the members of those committees.

On Monday, May 27, 2013 as requested by the finance committee, I complied with the committee and attempted to co-operate. I submitted my amendments and attended clause-by-clause throughout the meeting of the committee on Tuesday, May 28. I asked for time to present my amendments. There were 11 in total. I was given half as much time as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. I was allowed one minute per amendment. He was allowed two minutes per amendment. I have attached copies of the Hansard from all of these discussions to abbreviate the recitation of the facts.

I prefaced my presentation of amendments with a statement that I had not asked for this opportunity nor invitation and that while I was attempting to co-operate, it was without prejudice to my rights to submit amendments at report stage. Each time I was given the floor for 60 seconds, I repeated that my participation was without prejudice to my rights to present amendments at report stage, when I had the right to move my own amendments, speak to my own amendments, and answer questions about my amendments. At report stage, I have the right to vote on my amendments.

I also supported the point made by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park that inviting independent members to committee, in her words, “does not conform with parliamentary procedure in that only the House of Commons can appoint committee members”.

I noted that I did not have an equal opportunity to present my amendments. This observation was compounded as we went through clause-by-clause.

On two occasions, members of the committee suggested amendments to my amendments. I was not allowed to comment on those suggestions. On one occasion, a member of the government benches disagreed with a point I made, but I was not allowed to reply. On another occasion, the NDP members misunderstood the impact of my amendment, but I was not allowed to explain. I was not allowed to move my amendments. The motions were deemed moved. I was not allowed to vote on my amendments. As noted, I was not allowed even the ability to participate in discussions about my amendments.

There is no way the word “satisfactory” can be so twisted of meaning as to apply to the set of circumstances to which I was required to submit. It is a principle of fairness and natural justice that an opportunity that cannot be used is no opportunity at all.

When one considers the circumstances in which speakers have ruled that members did not have an adequate opportunity to submit their amendments, it is clear that this imposed process before the Standing Committee on Finance falls far short of the mark.

For example, in 2001, Speaker Milliken ruled that where a member was on two committees and had difficulty getting to the meeting, he could move amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken wrote that:

...because...the member maintains that he sits on two committees, both of which were seized with bills at the same time, and therefore had difficulty in moving his amendments, the Chair will give the benefit of the doubt to the member on this occasion.

In a situation where a member of a recognized parliamentary party attended the clause-by-clause consideration at the committee but was not an official member of the committee, Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments to be presented at report stage. He noted:

Of course, the Chair recognizes that our parliamentary system is party driven and the positions of the parties are brought forward to committees through its officially designated members. The Chair also recognizes that some members may want to act on their own.

Underscoring this, what an example: a member of a recognized party with rights to participate in standing committees chose to be in the meetings, in clause-by-clause, and could have handed that member's amendments to another member of his party and ask that they be submitted, but the Speaker of the House supported the right of that member to amendments at report stage because he was not a committee member. I was a long, long way from the rights of that member of a recognized political party sitting in that committee back in 2003 when Speaker Milliken allowed that member's amendments at report stage.

The right of a member to actually move the amendments at committee cannot be perverted through the expedient measure, imposed by a majority party, of demanding all amendments of an independent member be submitted, denying that member the right to move the amendment, speak to the amendment, other than in an inadequate perfunctory fashion, debate or defend the amendment, giving that member no opportunity to speak to other amendments and denying the member any chance to vote on his or her motion.

There may well be some way to accommodate members of Parliament in my position, but clearly, this experiment on Bill C-60 at clause-by-clause consideration in the finance committee was not acceptable. To accept it now, and disallow rights of members of Parliament in the position of independents to submit amendments at report stage, will be to create a precedent that fundamentally abuses our foundational principles of Westminster parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to find in favour of the point of order put forward by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and to set aside the treatment of me and the member from the Bloc Québécois and allow us to submit amendments, move amendments, debate our amendments and vote on them on Bill C-60 at report stage.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to voice my disappointment and opposition with respect to the various measures set out in Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013.

Once again, I am sorry that the government has decided to move a time allocation motion to limit debate in the House. This denial of democracy is especially appalling since Bill C-60 contains many amendments that will affect Canadians directly.

It is important to point out that this bill amends close to 50 laws, including a number of things that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking.

Rather than splitting it up so that we can study it in-depth in committee, the government wants to impose its views in a mammoth bill for the third time in this Parliament. The Conservatives are rejecting good democratic sense, without any consultation and without in-depth debate.

What we are getting is yet another austerity program that will in no way help Canadians re-enter the workforce and that will keep the country on a precarious path.

Tax increases, tariff hikes and the elimination of tax credits for labour-sponsored funds and co-operatives: the outcome is that Canadians have less money in their pockets, have access to fewer services and are the primary victims of the Conservatives' action.

As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported this week, budget 2012, the 2012 economic update and budget 2013 alone will lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017, and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.

This determination to make massive cuts is unacceptable because they will inevitably cause an economic downturn. What the Conservatives are doing is weakening Canadian growth to serve some backwards ideological imperative.

Issues related to immigration and the temporary foreign worker program have a prominent place in this bill. It is therefore essential that we pay special attention to them.

First, the Conservatives were true to form with regard to the temporary foreign worker program. They waited until they were backed into a corner before reacting. They waited until the very last minute to make adjustments to the program. Today, without any consultation, they quickly and with great fanfare announced adjustment measures.

In reality, what the government is announcing with regard to the temporary foreign worker program undoes everything the government has done since it was elected.

The Conservatives were pushing for an increased number of temporary foreign workers. Today, they realize that they went too far. They were allowing companies to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less than Canadians workers. Today, they admit that that was a mistake, even though they completely denied those accusations less than a week ago.

They announced a program to fast-track the processing of applications. Today, they realize that companies are taking advantage of this opportunity to replace Canadian workers.

The fact is that the Conservatives hastily went ahead with these measures without consultation, which is exactly the same criticism we have of Bill C-60 today.

The government's laissez-faire attitude has led to such debacles as the ones involving HD Mining and the Royal Bank of Canada.

We believe that the temporary foreign worker program must return to its core mandate, which is to allow companies to meet specific workforce needs for a temporary period of time when Canadians are not available to do the job, particularly highly skilled occupations.

The program must not be used to replace Canadian workers nor to cut companies' payroll costs, as the Conservatives have allowed.

Last week, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, reiterated what the NDP has been saying for a long time.

The new user fees and the government's requirement for companies to submit a hiring and training plan for Canadian workers before being able to benefit from the program will penalize small and medium-sized businesses much more than large businesses.

SMEs will have more difficulty complying with these requirements since the costs will have a much greater impact on SMEs overall spending than they will on that of the big Canadian banks, for example.

Similarly, Bill C-60 gives the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism new discretionary powers. This is in addition to the powers he gave himself under Bill C-31 and Bill C-43.

Instead of putting the normal appeal process in place, the minister is once again setting himself up as both judge and jury in various immigration matters. As for other aspects related to immigration, the issue of fees is also cause for concern. It is important to point out that the new fees put forward by the minister for applications for permanent residence, citizenship and the temporary foreign worker program will not be subject to the User Fees Act under Bill C-60.

Accordingly, for these new fees, the minister will not have to consult with anyone, do any impact studies or inform applicants. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance gave Citizenship and Immigration Canada the latitude to increase various fees. Now he is giving that department carte blanche.

An application for permanent residence can cost over $1,500 with all the associated fees, and increasing costs even further will limit people's access to our immigration programs.

In addition to wanting to create a distinction between citizens with just one citizenship and those with dual citizenship, now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism will also be creating a distinction between wealthy immigrants and those who are less well off. The government's decision to reduce that department's budget for integration services will have a direct and negative impact.

In closing, this House must work on behalf of all Canadians. Imposing major changes of this nature without sufficient debate shows carelessness and contempt for democracy.

The immigration measures announced in response to pressure in the House and in the media, particularly concerning the temporary foreign worker program, reek of improvisation and amateurism, as usual.

Once again, this government is demonstrating that it has no overall plan and it has no idea what it means to be accountable.

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

Thank you very much.

One of the aspects of the amendments includes a provision for where a minimum sentence would be five years. When we went through Bill C-43 in terms of the issue surrounding the faster removal of foreign criminals, we actually lowered the bar in that regard to make it six months for serious crimes.

I wondered about your thoughts on a position in terms of how the amendments speak specifically to the length of time. If, for example, a judge were to hand out a sentence of five years less a day, would we still, based on the amendments, be able to have that individual say or state that they've actually renounced their citizenship?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Well, that's a great number. That works for me. That's good enough for me. The experts, who I like to call the folks with good, old-fashioned common sense, I think would agree with your assessment and would say that zero is probably the right number.

I do have some technical questions for you. I'm not sure if I'm going to get offside with this, but as you know, we have Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. If somebody who's not a resident of Canada and not a citizen of Canada, but is in Canada, and is convicted based on the legislation that you're proposing here, would that meet the threshold for them to be removed from the country if they were deemed to be a threat to Canadian citizens?

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about the file in respect to immigration, let us look at Bill C-31 in terms of the refugee reforms in this country, or Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. We can look at the work that has been done within this ministry time and time again to get backlogs down to ensure that those who have high skills and need to work in this country are going to get here on a much faster basis. All of those backlogs are down. We are doing what is right for the Canadian economy in terms of how we are focused on immigration and we are going to continue to do that.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the only disappointment I have today is that I only have 18 minutes instead of the 30 that would be allocated. I am starting out a little disappointed, but nonetheless the clock is the clock. At 5:15, the bells are going to ring. We are going to come back in the House to vote, and we are going to vote on the very bill we are speaking to this evening. Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals bill, is going to pass because every person on this side of the House is going to support this piece of legislation. We are going to carry it over at third reading and send it to the Senate.

There is hope and opportunity for our colleagues who sit on the other side of the House to play a role in changing part of our immigration system that should have been changed decades ago. They could support the legislation this evening and see it pass. We could perhaps do what we did with Bill C-11 in the previous Parliament, and pass an immigration bill unanimously that will start the process of refugee reform in this country.

I listened closely to the member for Winnipeg North. He continually says to all of us that he wants to see a stronger piece of legislation, a stronger justice system, that would ensure individuals who commit serious crimes and are not Canadian citizens are not allowed to stay in our country once they have served their time in jail.

The member liked listening to some of the witness at committee because they indicated they supported his perspective. One of our witnesses, Ms. Rosenfeldt, provided a passionate and detailed and descriptive understanding of why the bill should pass. The member's favourite piece to talk about is the trafficking of marijuana and how we could ever think that anyone who grows six plants would be trafficking. Ms. Rosenfeldt gave us a detailed description of how much trafficking an individual could do with that much marijuana. Nonetheless, the member for Winnipeg North was not prepared to listen then, and unfortunately it sounds like he and his party are not prepared to listen today.

We promised in our platform during the election in May 2011 that we would implement this piece of legislation. The minister committed to doing the same shortly after the election. We introduced the legislation in the House prior to the summer.

It was interesting to hear the immigration critics for the NDP and the Liberal Party ask at the time the minister deposited the bill why he was doing it, as there would be no time to study it before the House was going to break for the summer. Now we are ready to vote at third reading this evening, and both of them claim they did not have enough time, that we did not provide the number of hours necessary to understand the bill or do enough detailed research. The reason the legislation was introduced prior to the summer was to give them the opportunity to read the legislation. We offered briefings from ministry officials and a detailed analysis of what the bill would mean. We were more than prepared to give them time to sit down with the ministry and have a better opportunity to understand the bill.

The NDP supported the bill at second reading. We brought it to committee, where members had the opportunity to study it. Instead of saying we have two hours on Tuesday or two hours on Thursday, or maybe we will spend 8 hours studying the bill, we asked the opposition how much time it would like and how many witnesses it would like to bring forward.

We asked the opposition what we could do to ensure they had every bit of knowledge they thought they would need to move the legislation forward, and as I heard my colleague from the NDP mention this afternoon, to try to work together, not sitting on the other side of the House voting against this piece of legislation. All of that effort, the work, the information that was provided, and all of the analysis and detail the minister brought forward to the committee at any time he was asked to come, seems to not have been necessary for the opposition, because they have stood here today and said they are going to vote against it.

I am glad the member for Winnipeg North instructed us to listen to what the individuals said who came as witnesses to committee. I mentioned Sharon Rosenfeldt, who is the chair of Victims of Violence, and the comments she made about the bill. She also said:

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 not the only ones saying this. When Ms. Rosenfeldt said this, it led me to think, and we brought together the information regarding all of the appeals that have been filed. I mentioned it when we were speaking at report stage, but it bears repeating. In 2007, at the Immigration Appeal Division, we had 830 appeals. In 2008, we had 954 appeals; in 2009, 1,086 appeals; in 2010, 849; and in 2011, there were 564 appeals. On average, since 2007, there have been over 850 appeals annually to the Immigration Appeal Division from serious criminals trying to delay their deportation.

When we look at the numbers and see the abuse that has taken place, we see a number of individuals and the cases, which have been cited time and time again by members of the government when speaking to the bill, of those who have taken advantage of that appeal process. They actually have a system here in Canada that they can take advantage of.

Tonight the NDP and the Liberal Party have the opportunity to play a role in getting rid of a system that is fraught with abuse, that is being taken advantage of. It has seen countless individuals not only stop their deportation from happening because of the appeal system that is in place but actually become repeat offenders.

When Ms. Rosenfeldt speaks of Canadians becoming further victimized, it is up to us, as a government, to ensure we take action. We have invested hours on the bill in the House of Commons, and at committee with our witnesses and all of the detailed discussion we had during clause-by-clause, and we have spent a lot of time going over each and every amendment. The government did not support amendments brought forward that were going to weaken the bill, but we certainly allowed for the discussion to happen so we could listen to what was being presented. We did in fact accept one amendment, and I appreciate the member for Winnipeg North acknowledging that there was a strengthening of the bill.

At the end of the day, it is our responsibility to act on behalf of victims. It is our responsibility to act. Other countries have surpassed us in terms of timing with regard to this legislation and have moved much further down the road.

We have a partnership with, and we belong, to the Five Country Conference: the U.K., the United States, Australia and New Zealand. They have all acted on these issues. Misrepresentation was one issue. We are the only country that has not acted in a measurable way on these issues.

We stand here today at third reading to say not only are the government and those who sit on this side of the House going to support the legislation, we can actually see if members of the opposition are going to support it this evening. There are a number of other countries that have moved much quicker than this country has and in a much more aggressive way than we have.

The bill, when members look at the detail and where it stands, has three principle parts. The first makes it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. The second makes it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place, and the third removes barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada. We have done a lot of speaking, defending and promoting of the first two parts, which make it easier for 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.

One point that I want to highlight is the removing of barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada. The Minister of Public Safety and his ministry plays a role in the legislation as well. We do not need to look much further than section 42, which will actually make it easier for low-risk foreign nationals travelling with their families, who would like to come to Canada on a temporary basis, to become admissible here.

For example, a parent who is inadmissible on health grounds would remain inadmissible and require a temporary resident permit to visit Canada, but the remaining family members would now be admissible. Therefore, we are opening the door to say that, on a temporary basis, they can visit the country. They have a family member who is inadmissible and that family member would have to remain inadmissible, but for the relatives of that family member, there is an opportunity. Currently, they are inadmissible. Under Bill C-43, they would be admissible to Canada.

Further, inadmissible persons seeking ministerial relief would have to submit a formal application. The minister's authority to grant relief on his or her own initiative without a formal application will be explicitly spelled out. For example, the minister could use this explicit authority to facilitate the entry of a head of state who would otherwise be found inadmissible, if the minister was satisfied that the decision was not contrary to national interests.

While I have heard the speakers today and I have heard the members of the committee from the NDP and Liberal Party proclaim that the legislation focuses on those who are criminals who will be removed from our country, who are not citizens, who are permanent residents who have come here. The opposition members have not once stood up to talk about the fact that the legislation actually does allow for the easier transfer of family members who may have a relative who is inadmissible. It would allow them to actually come here to Canada.

A number of people, including the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the fact that we had witnesses, and that we should have heard and listened to them. Ravi Jain, who is an immigration lawyer, was quoted. When he was asked about this issue, he said:

If you're coming to Canada and you happen to have relatives with you, dependents with you, and if you're inadmissible, but for minor reasons, like you know, maybe some criminality, but not really overly serious, but not organized criminality, or if it's health grounds or some other, you know, misrepresentation or other kinds of grounds, and you're coming, you have special permit to overcome that inadmissibility, then you're no longer going to render your dependents inadmissible at the same time, because right now if you're coming with someone who's inadmissible, if you're the wife or kids or whatever, then you're automatically inadmissible.

Those in opposition to the bill have stated that they have immigration lawyers who have said to them that the bill goes too far. It is great to hear from immigration lawyers who have done their homework and understand the legislation.

The third most important part of the bill, which is recognized by Mr. Jain, is that when an individual is not allowed to come into the country, his or her family at least will be in the position come into the country, when it is a minor offence or an issue of health. Both the Minister Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety will have some latitude in terms of their ability to allow those family members into the country. It did not happen before, but it will happen now.

I want to conclude by thanking all of those from the government side who sit on the immigration committee. We have worked on two very significant pieces of legislation, Bill C-31 and now Bill C-43. One of the most difficult things to do is to ensure one does justice to the legislation as it moves forward.

I can say, and I have not heard in respect to my colleagues on the other side of the House, this about their complaint about this government or committee's ability to give enough time to research, work and move forward on legislation. I thank all the members of the committee who did a tremendous job, including the chairman, who every once in a while even has to call me to order. I know that is hard to believe. We do on occasion certainly enjoy the hard work for us to move forward. It is important to recognize that both members of our committee and those who sit on the opposition benches, regardless of position, have put countless and tireless hours in moving this legislation forward.

This legislation is good for Canada. It will improve the view people from around the world have about how Canada treats those who come here for the purposes of permanent residency and who are in fact criminals.

We are now in a position where the legislation would allow us to do what so many other countries are doing, and that is to ensure we have a fast, strong process that removes foreign criminals from our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are discussing Bill C-43, but I was fascinated to hear the member speak about the fact that the minister should understand that the trafficking of marijuana is taking place in high schools all over the country, despite the fact he is from a party that believes we should spend a lot of time legalizing marijuana.

I am not quite sure where he was going with that, but subject to that, he does continue to recite three or four examples while never providing a concrete example of a situation he is suggesting could happen and has actually happened. He has never come forward. He ties together everything that he thinks will work into some sort of proposal without actually coming up with any evidence.

However, the member mentioned having spent time listening to witnesses who presented at committee. I thought it would be good to ask him what he thought of what one of the witnesses at committee, Sharon Rosenfeldt, the chair of Victims of Violence, 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.

We were all at committee and heard that witness. The member for Winnipeg North is saying that we should be listening. What does he think of the comments by Ms. Rosenfeldt?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-43 this afternoon and to put on record what I believe is an important perspective.

First and foremost, if the minister genuinely wanted to get rid of foreign criminals or permanent residents who were committing all these crimes, I believe there is a lot more the minister could have done other than just bring in the legislation. We in the Liberal Party do believe that permanent residents who commit serious crimes should be deported, and it should be done in a timely fashion. We do believe that. We are not, to quote some government members, supporting criminals staying in Canada indefinitely. At the end of the day, we believe that there needs to be consequences. It is not too much to ask people who are coming to Canada to behave in a good fashion. A vast majority of permanent residents have done that.

The Liberal Party, in its time in government, generously opened the doors to immigrants from around the world and advocated for responsible behaviour in Canada, and we will continue to do so.

The bill goes back to June of last year in the dying days of the session. The Minister of Immigration had a big press conference and he had all sorts of PowerPoint slides. The minister spared no cost on this. He wanted to make a powerful statement, which all Canadians needed to know, that the government is committed to the faster removal of foreign criminals. He loved the headline and he wanted every media outlet to report that fact.

Many experts, many different stakeholders have said the bill is so far-reaching that the minister has gone overboard. In reality, that is really what has happened. He has gone a little overboard. If the minister really wanted to do Canadians and all residents a favour, maybe he should invest a little more in our border services and in resources for immigration.

I asked him how many foreign nationals do we have in Canada today who are not here legally who are committing crimes. I applaud the Minister of Immigration. He gave a somewhat honest answer. He recognized that he did not know. He has been the minister for six years and he does not know. Crime is a really important agenda item for the government, apparently. Yet he has no idea how many foreign nationals are in Canada today, let alone the fact that he does not even know how many of those foreign nationals are committing crimes. Why? Because he is more focused on the bigger picture, the big headline.

That might be good possibly for future leadership bids, but in terms of serving Canadians, I would suggest that there is a lot more that the Minister of Immigration could have done to deal with this issue, which is important to Canadians and all residents who live here and call Canada their home. The minister could have adequately resourced our services so that the people who commit these hideous and serious crimes could be deported in a more timely fashion. That is what we expected from the Minister of Immigration.

We have a number of concerns about Bill C-43. One of them is using public policy to deny entry. The minister said, “It is okay. Trust me. I can determine what refugees are irregular arrivals”. Members will remember that piece of legislation. The minister wanted that power. This is the minister who said, “It is okay. I can determine what country in the world is a safe country”, even though we had other legislation that passed that said it should be dealt with by an advisory board made up of professionals, people who have expertise in a wide variety of issues such as human rights.

Now we have the minister, once again, wanting more power. He wants to be able to, through public policy, decide who should not be able to come to the country. One could say maybe that is just the Liberal Party talking and being critical of the minister but, no, all we have to do is look at what was said in the citizenship and immigration committee.

In committee Barb Jackman, a constitutional lawyer, said:

I have no doubt that the public policy grounds will lead to denying people admission on the basis of speech.

There were other individuals. This is a quote from the testimony of Michael Greene from the Canadian Bar Association on the same topic:

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.

This is not the Liberal Party saying this, and contrary to what the minister likes to say, which is that these lawyers are all lefties, social activists and so forth, these are people who are committed enough to share their ideas and their thoughts when they recognize that the government has gone overboard and who take the time to come and make a presentation to our committee. We should appreciate that.

There are other issues. Misrepresentation is now increased, from two years to five years, in terms of when a person would actually be able to reapply for immigration purposes to come to Canada. Again, the minister says that if people are filling out the application, by God, they should be honest, and if they are honest, they do not have a problem. Therefore, why would someone oppose increasing the time penalty from two years to five years when someone has been dishonest?

I am sure that the minister is aware of things such as unintentional or innocent misrepresentation. I am sure the minister is aware of bad immigration lawyers and employment agencies that provide misinformation. It is not always the applicant who might be at fault.

However, in the legislation, the minister does not care about that. He is prepared to ignore that issue completely and say that it doesn't matter. He doesn't care why it might have appeared on the form. That person will have to wait five years because of something that they might not have even been aware of and, for all intents and purposes, they thought they were being completely honest and straightforward on the application. However, there is no extra consideration whatsoever being given to that. It is a mindset. This is something where the Conservatives and the Liberals really differ.

Liberals believe in immigration in the true sense of the word. We believe that immigration is what has helped build our country to what it is today. We do not believe that if people land in Canada they have to become citizens or they are not good citizens of our land. The current government believes that if people land in Canada and have been here for three years, they had better be getting their citizenship or they plant a seed of doubt in terms of why they would not be getting their citizenship, that they are not as good as the rest of us for not getting their citizenship. If we listen to the rhetoric and the many comments that come from the minister, one can easily draw that sort of a conclusion.

I raised the issue in terms of children and the issue of family breakup. I must have hit a chord because the minister began his comments with it. We have families that immigrate to Canada every day, families of three, four, five and larger. I found the minister's response amazing. He said that if one member of a family commits a crime, it is not a problem. Their family does not have to stay in Canada. They can all leave Canada because that one person has to leave.

There is no evaluation or true sense of compassion in terms of what the circumstances behind the crime or the action were. Truth be known, it is not as black and white as many would like to think it is. I sat on a justice committee. That is why I said before that I believe in consequences for all crimes, period, whether they are committed by Canadians or permanent residents. I believe there needs to be consequences for crime, and I believe also that all my caucus colleagues support that.

Where the Liberals differ is that we are a little more sympathetic to the understanding of situations. That is why, for example, we believe it is appropriate to let judges have some judicial discretion. That is something in which we have a little more faith, the importance of an independent judicial system. However, the government does not recognize that at all. It is straightforward.

This was interesting. I cited three examples and the hon. member only made reference to two of the examples when we talked about youth crime. One of the crimes I mentioned was a 20-year-old with six pots of marijuana. On occasions I have explained in the House that, yes, those are for trafficking purposes. That is nothing new. The hon. member's comment was that the bill only relates to trafficking. Fine. I have acknowledged that in the past.

Does the minister not think there are 18-year-olds trafficking marijuana in high schools? Do I have news for the minister. It is there. It is real. It is happening today, not only by people who immigrated when they were two-year-olds but by people who were born in Canada. I will tell the hon. member something else. At times young people make some stupid decisions. If a person were in Canada since they were a one-year-old and they are now 20 years old and they get caught doing something stupid, is that justification for deporting that person in all cases? I would argue that it is not, not in all cases. The minister would ultimately argue, yes.

By my saying what I just said, the minister will say the Liberal Party supports people who sexually molest seniors, and I believe he tried to imply it. That is absolute rubbish, but that is one example the minister gave. The reality is that the minister is prepared to see a 20-year-old deported to a country he or she has never known, even though that person was a one-year-old when they came to Canada, because they had six pots of marijuana growing and attempted to sell it to some buddies.

Before one starts throwing stones, one needs to reflect on their own human behaviour.

At the end of the day the other example the minister gave was about using false identification. As opposed to hearing it from me, let me read exactly what was said in committee. I would ask the minister to really listen to this. I quote:

Using a false or fraudulent document is an offence under section 368 of the Criminal Code and carries 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 the United States is inadmissible under IRPA because of a foreign conviction.

It doesn't matter that the U.S. court punished him with only a $200 fine. Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not require any particular sentence, only a foreign conviction.

This is coming from someone who represented the Canadian Bar, dealing with immigration work in the past, a presenter to the committee. The minister says that we have to do our homework. Part of the homework is listening to what people have to say when they come to the committee. I am just repeating something said before committee, and if one follows that example through, I think it would surprise a lot of people.

I brought up three issues. The one that the minister did not make reference to was a 20-year old taking his camera or cellphone into a movie theatre, recording some cool show he has just seen and then showing it in any way. Well, he is out of luck if he does not have his citizenship, even though he may have been here since he was one or two years old.

The point is that the government, in bringing forward this legislation, has gone too far and over-reached. We in the Liberal Party recognize the need to ensure that permanent residents who commit serious crimes should be deported. We believe that it should be done relatively quickly. There are ways that the government could be far more effective, if it genuinely wants to make our communities safer places to be. I cited that point at the very beginning, and I think it is an appropriate way to close.

If the government wants to prevent crimes from taking place in the first place, if it wants to deport those who are here illegally and who should not have been here in the first place, not because they committed a crime but because they have over-stayed, and if it wants to deport permanent residents who have committed serious crimes, the best thing it could do would be to invest in immigration services that facilitate that. The government could invest in our border services. If the government were prepared to do that, then it would be far more effective in making our communities safer places.

There are many other things that people should be reflecting on before this bill comes to a vote. I would suggest that the government did not listen to the types of amendment that we brought forward, some serious amendments, at committee.

I appreciate the fact that one of those amendments was modified by the government, where the minister uses his ability to deny access and would be obligated to submit that in a yearly report. At the very least, the House would then know when and how often the minister used that ability. We were hoping that the amendment would pass the way we suggested it, but I am glad that the government did recognize that particular Liberal amendment and made some modifications. However, for the most part, with that one exception, many other amendments that could really have improved the legislation were not passed.

As a final thought, I do believe that we need to look at a country like France that recognizes children who immigrate there as being more a part of their society, because of their age when they immigrated. Here I could give the example of someone in a tragic situation who had immigrated as a child and through a horrific accident became a foster child, which, no doubt, has happened in the past.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes the headline effect. It exaggerates the significance of examples that are obviously exceptions. Bill C-43 is clearly the perfect way for the Conservatives to impose their ideology.

My colleague is absolutely right. Let us talk about facts, about solid evidence. It would be a good idea to analyze all of these different crimes and categorize them. That would provide more conclusive data on which to base an objective decision to implement this kind of bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the minister should look into the meaning of demagogic. I think it applies more to him than to my speech.

Our democracies have evolved in terms of basic rights. In the absence of proof to the contrary, real democracies have always sought to ensure that everyone's basic human rights are respected.

Bill C-43 does not respect the basic human rights of individuals.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me time to speak to this bill.

Last week, after introducing a bill notable for its repressive and primitive ideology, supporting its position with rare exceptions and rejecting the official opposition's amendments, the government imposed a time allocation motion to cut off debate on Bill C-43. This behaviour is unacceptable. Clearly, the government wanted to muzzle MPs who would have liked to talk about this bill.

I believe that it is our duty to condemn the government's attitude at all stages of the legislative process for Bill C-43. The government has been narrow-minded, its arguments demagogic, its ideology backward and its approach undemocratic.

Rather than listen to criticisms put forward by the official opposition, groups advocating for the rights of refugees, and immigration lawyers, the government chose to impose its will unilaterally at the expense of genuine democratic debate. The Conservatives are flouting the humanitarian tradition that has distinguished Canada for decades, choosing instead to undermine the principle of basic human rights.

We agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada must be dealt with quickly. However, we are concerned about the fact that this bill gives the minister vast discretionary power without appropriate checks and balances.

This approach is all the more regrettable given that Bill C-43 will soon have serious negative consequences on many fronts. First, the number of deportations will rise sharply, and some of those deportations will be outrageous. The most striking example of this is the measure stating that offenders' family members may be affected by deportation policies. Many individuals will be deported to countries where they have no ties just because the government refuses to recognize that the proposed measures are excessive and will short-circuit the usual legal process.

It is also important to note that Bill C-43 substantially broadens the notion of serious criminality, now characterized as crime punishable by a sentence of six months or more, conditional or otherwise, regardless of whether the crime was violent. For example, a first offence punishable by a six-month conditional sentence—the offender will not actually spend time in jail—will still result in the deportation of the offender.

The minister will bring in a double punishment, accompanied by removal and no chance for appeal regarding the deportation, which goes against our judicial principles.

Furthermore, as Alex Neve from Amnesty International Canada said, the lack of relief mechanisms means that the circumstances will not be taken into account. This type of situation shows that Bill C-43 makes no sense.

Amy Casipullai, the senior policy and public education coordinator for the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, said that the restrictions could affect more visible minorities because of the racial profiling certain police forces engage in. Not only will visible minorities be more likely to be arrested, but now, they and their families could also be removed without appeal, without any recourse. But the Conservatives chose to ignore this reality and instead accuse the witness of siding with criminals.

Similarly, a number of experts, including lawyer Jean Lash, have said that people with mental illnesses sometimes commit crimes as a result of their illness. Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer, also argues that people with mental illnesses would face undue hardship if they were deported to a country where mental illness is often stigmatized.

Since refugees from war-torn countries are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress, it makes sense that people are concerned about how Bill C-43 will affect them. However, the Conservatives are stubbornly ignoring the reality on the ground and would rather disregard this aspect.

Other restrictions imposed by Bill C-43 make absolutely no sense. If people are prohibited from being accompanied to an interview with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, they are prevented from receiving advice and support throughout the process. This can clearly be a hardship for them.

Bill C-43 would also indiscriminately standardize the consequences of a misrepresentation. Whether or not a misrepresentation is deliberate, it results in a five-year inadmissibility.

All of the new discretionary powers granted to the minister, without any checks and balances, will create the potential for abuse.

We proposed an amendment to require the minister to be accountable and transparent regarding these discretionary powers. Unfortunately the Conservatives rejected this suggestion.

Based on public policy considerations, a concept that is not defined in the act, the minister will be able to label someone as a threat without any justification, without having to explain his decisions and, most importantly, without any checks and balances.

That is what happens with a bill that ignores criticisms, suggestions from the official opposition and comments from outside witnesses.

Bill C-43 will have disastrous results because of the significant flaws in the bill. It restricts the right of appeal without regard for the repercussions, curtails refugees' rights without consideration of our legal principles, expands the minister's discretionary power without any checks and balances and establishes a policy of mass deportation without consideration of the circumstances.

Instead of tackling the problems of serious criminality, the government is imposing a set of measures that will cause significant harm to individuals who do not deserve this type of treatment.

The Conservatives' determination to go it alone, to decide unilaterally and to avoid debate and discussion will have consequences. The first of these will be a defective policy whose flaws will surface quickly.

Bill C-43 is another stain on the Conservatives' immigration record.

The government's message is the following: the Conservatives will consider anyone who is not a bona fide Canadian to be a foreigner who cannot make a mistake. Even worse, not only can foreigners not make a mistake, but they will also be deported and, with this bill, their family can be booted out as well.

Canada has traditionally considered itself a country that welcomes immigrants and a leader in the protection of basic human rights.

The Conservatives are betraying this tradition by introducing a bill rooted in rhetoric that turns back the clock and makes unwarranted changes that will have serious consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to take part in this important debate.

As I mentioned at report stage, the New Democrats wanted to work across party lines to ensure the speedy removal of serious non-citizen criminals. To that end, I introduced nine reasonable amendments to the bill at committee to curb the excessive powers of the minister and restore some due process. However, they were all rejected by the Conservative majority.

I will give some examples because it would be instructive for the House to hear exactly what we dealt with.

With one amendment in particular, we proposed to do two very different things to limit the overly broad ministerial power to declare a foreign national inadmissible based on public policy considerations.

First, we suggested taking the minister's own guidelines, which he presented to the immigration committee, and codify them in the legislation word for word. When the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration visited us on October 24, he even suggested this approach when he said, “the committee may recommend that we codify these guidelines in the bill”.

Second, and perhaps more important, the amendment introduced a new threshold for the exercise of this power. Specifically, the minister must have reason to believe that a foreign national would meet one of the listed requirements in the guidelines. Despite the minister suggesting this course of action, his Conservative MPs voted it down. We can see that they are not interested in working together to get a better result.

We also proposed as number of reasonable amendments to restore the ability of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds. By rejecting these amendments, the best interests of children implicated in these cases will no longer be considered.

In its brief to the immigration committee, Amnesty International put its concerns this way:

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.

The Canadian Council for Refugees pointed out that:

These inadmissibility sections...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.

It is also worth pointing out that the TCRI, which represents 142 community organizations in Quebec that assist immigrants and refugees, submitted that:

—this complete exclusion of H and C considerations in these contexts is contrary to Canada's international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which among other things provides protection of family rights and security of the person....it also violates Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child...

While we may agree that dangerous violent criminals should be removed from Canada as quickly as possible, we had hoped the Conservatives would also recognize that it was important to ensure the minister could still consider the protection of children in these cases. The amendments we moved would have helped dull one of the sharper and more mean-spirited edges of the bill.

The committee studying the bill heard a number of concerns about provisions in the bill that increased the penalty for inadmissibility for misrepresentation from two years to five years and precluded a foreign national from applying for permanent residency status in that period. In fact, many witnesses said that five years was overly punitive, especially when misrepresentation was made by inadvertent error.

In its submission, the Canadian Council for Refugees pointed out that a five-year inadmissibility was excessively harsh in cases of minor infractions when a person was acting under some form of duress. It offered two of many examples where this would be an unfair punishment: first, a woman who did not declare a husband or child because of social and family pressures, and sometimes fear; and second, an applicant who was not personally responsible for the misrepresentation because of an unscrupulous agent or even family member filling out the form for them.

It is the second case I find particularly troubling. I believe that we must make sure to punish those who are criminally misrepresenting themselves, not the victims of shady consultants.

While the CCR recommended that we simply delete this clause, once again, being the NDP, we proposed a moderate alternative. Our amendment created an exception for permanent residents and foreign nationals who are inadmissible for misrepresentation that is demonstrably unintentional. We thought that struck the right balance. Yet once again, there was no movement from the other side on this very reasonable change.

Much has been said in this House about the section in Bill C-43 that redefines serious criminality as a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least six months, which has the effect of precluding access to an appeal. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues across the way that our major concern with these provisions is that they limit due process for permanent Canadian residents, many of whom have been here their whole lives and know nothing about the culture or language of the country to which they would be deported.

With all of this in mind, I moved an amendment at committee stage to mitigate some of the worst effects of this clause. The amendment did two things, which I will address separately.

First, I made a modest proposal that we exempt conditional sentences from the terms of imprisonment, thereby ensuring that convictions that are not as serious as more egregious crimes, as is the case with conditional sentencing, are not caught by the provision. This was a suggestion made by the Canadian Bar Association and others during their testimony to the immigration committee.

In fact, the national president of the Canadian Somali Congress told the committee that we should definitely make an exception for a conditional sentence versus jail. In its current form, the bill does not do that. There could be a situation where a permanent resident, facing jail time, may be sentenced by a judge, in the community's interest, to a conditional sentence due to the fact that the person is gainfully employed. Because of the nature of conditional sentences, conditional sentences take longer to fulfill. Ironically, that would actually lead to the capture of this person with this legislation, because it would exceed six months.

The second thing this amendment was intended to do was restore access to appeal for those convicted of crimes outside of Canada or for those who have committed acts outside Canada. I believe it is the Immigration Appeal Division that is the appropriate body to properly evaluate these cases.

We know that in many countries, simply being a member of the opposition party can get an individual charged and convicted of a serious crime. Due process to evaluate these cases is essential in a free and democratic country like Canada, another moderate NDP proposal struck down by the Conservatives.

The go-it-alone, ignore-all-experts approach of this government was on full display as the Conservatives voted down all the official opposition's very reasonable amendments. New Democrats wanted to work across party lines to ensure the speedy removal of serious, non-citizen criminals. However, the Conservatives did not want it to work that way, and they did not work with us to make this legislation better.

Canadians want this Parliament to work together, and they want us to work together in the public interest. Unfortunately, Conservatives refused an opportunity to do just that.

Once again, before I hear speeches about how much my colleagues and I love criminals, love people who are engaged in all kinds of crime and want to protect the criminals, let me make it very clear. We were clear at committee and have been every time we have spoken in this House: We are committed to expediting the process of deportation of serious criminals who put Canada and Canadians at risk. However, we cannot stand by while due process is missing, while so much power is enshrined in the hands of a minister and while we stand in contravention of not only the UN but possibly of our own charter as well.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

moved that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me one last opportunity to talk about Bill C-43, an important bill that will enable us to keep our communities safer.

This bill was part of the Conservative Party's election platform during the most recent election. It will improve our immigration system by speeding up removal of foreign criminals.

I have already had a chance to summarize the essence, the key features of this bill. However, during recent debates in the House, some MPs have raised some concerns about the bill and have criticized it. I would like to use my 20 minutes to respond to all of those concerns and criticisms.

Rather than reviewing the bill in the way I did at second reading and at report stage, I think it would be more profitable for the House if I respond to individual criticisms made by members in the debate, particularly at report stage in the House.

First, I will go through the points that I have heard raised in no particular order. One of the criticisms suggested that the bill will divide families, causing emotional and financial damage, especially for children whose parents would be removed from the country as a result of the bill.

I remind members that under the current provisions of the Immigration Act, a foreign national who is given a custodial sentence by a Canadian criminal court of six months or longer is criminally inadmissible to Canada and a deportation order is issued for them. They have lost the right, the privilege, of living in Canada by virtue of their serious criminal activity and the finding of a Canadian court in that respect. That was not a decision made by the government, by law-abiding citizens or by the Minister of Immigration. The decision to commit a serious criminal act is the decision of the criminal, who must be held responsible for his act.

When Canada has opened the doors of generosity and opportunity to a foreign national, essentially all we ask to maintain that privilege in perpetuity is that they live in Canada for two out of five years as a permanent resident or become a citizen or simply do not commit a serious criminal act. To suggest that the government would somehow be responsible for “dividing family members” if a serious foreign criminal is removed is perverse. The decision to become inadmissible, to be deported, is a decision the criminal has taken by virtue of his act, a decision that has been confirmed following due process by a Canadian court of law.

Should that permanent resident being removed following deportation have family members in Canada, they are not required to stay here. They are welcome to go back to their country. The notion that Canada is dividing a family is absurd. There is a certain, I would call it, soft bigotry implicit in the attitude that people can only stay in Canada and they cannot go back to any other country in the world with their family members. How condescending to suggest that people cannot pursue fulfilling lives in other countries around the world. I reject that categorically. I say that if people commit serious crimes, they have lost the privilege of staying in Canada as a permanent resident.

Second, we hear from members of the opposition, and this is one of the more hysterical arguments from the member for Winnipeg North, that the government is somehow characterizing hundreds of thousands of permanent residents as criminals with the bill, when the exact inverse is true. The vast majority of immigrants whom we welcome as permanent residents are law-abiding people, who would never dream of committing a serious crime and who expect that those who do should lose the privilege of staying in Canada.

As a government, every year on average we admit 257,000 permanent residents. It is the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history and the highest per capita levels of immigration in the developed world, adding almost 0.8% to our population per year. That is 260,000 permanent residents.

However, over the past five years we see on average about 800 permanent residents per year who commit serious violent crimes that carry penal sentences of six months or more. In 2010, it was 849; in 2009, 1,086; in 2011, 564. It is about 800 on average. That is a tiny fraction of a per cent of the number of permanent residents in Canada. At any given time we have about 700,000 to 800,000 permanent residents, so about one-tenth of a per cent actually commit serious crimes. Therefore, to suggest that the bill has a general application to all or most permanent residents is perverse. To the contrary, it focuses only on the tiny minority who commit serious crimes.

Let me then follow up on the argument of the opposition that the bar for the accelerated removal of foreign criminals is too low. I am told by the member for Winnipeg North that if a teenager is caught growing six marijuana plants he or she would be removed from Canada. That is ridiculous. The relevant criminal offence is possession of narcotics with the intention of trafficking. The member also gave the bizarre hypothetical scenario that a foreign teenager travelling to the United States and acquiring illegal ID to buy a drink at a bar when he or she is under age would somehow be deported from Canada.

I will say this. I was an opposition critic and I know it is difficult. There is a lot of legislation and it is often complex material. However, I at least made an effort to familiarize myself with the bills that I was responsible for debating. I would read the bill and the relevant research notes. I would commend that practice to the member for Winnipeg North. He might find his interventions in the debate taken somewhat more seriously if he actually bothered to read the legislation, because section 24 of C-43 states:

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 or that is described in paragraph 36....

It states “punished in Canada”. Being arrested for a misdemeanour in the United States, such as buying alcohol under age as a minor, is not being punished in Canada and it is certainly not punishable in Canada by a term of six months or more.

I do not know why the member and the Liberal Party in particular keep diminishing the severity of the crimes that would be affected by the six-month bar in Bill C-43, which by the way already exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as the benchmark for serious criminality leading to a deportation order. In 2010-11, custodial sentences were imposed in about one-third of guilty adult criminal court cases completed, similar to the proportion seen over the past decade. In 2010-11, the majority, 86%, of all sentences to custody were relatively short, at six months or less. Only about 10% of custodial sentences were sentenced to a period of six months to two years less a day, and 4% received a sentence of two or more years.

The crimes that would be affected by the bill by removing the IAD appeal, which is used as a delay tactic for deportation, would be those sentenced to six months or two years less a day, that is, 10% of custodial sentences. Again, only 33% of criminal convictions lead to a custodial sentence. We are talking about 10% of the most serious crimes committed in Canada. In fact, it is even less than that. It is the 10% of those that get custodial sentences, so we are talking about the most serious crimes.

The opposition keeps trying to pretend that the benchmark is low, but in fact in the real criminal justice world, the sorts of crimes that are committed by foreign nationals that we are seeking to address in the bill include: assault with a weapon, carrying a sentence of 13 months in jail in one case, two years less a day in another; the possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purposes of trafficking, two years less a day; sexual assault, 18 months in jail in one case; break and enter, including possession of tools for breaking and entering and theft, 13 months; robbery, 18 months in jail; multiple counts of forgery, et cetera.

We are talking about serious crimes and I have repeatedly referenced the cases of Vietnamese gangster, Jackie Tran; the Guyanese criminal, Patrick De Florimonte; the Romanian fraudster responsible for forgery and conspiracy to commit fraud, Gheorghe Capra; Cesar Guzman from Peru, who sexually assaulted a senior citizen. The Liberals would allow that man to still access an IAD appeal and delay his removal by four years. Then there is the case of the assault with a weapon, drug possession, drug trafficking and failure to comply with court orders of Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam, who managed to delay his deportation for seven years.

Canadians do not think that is acceptable. To the Liberals, sexually assaulting a senior apparently is not a serious crime. That is explicitly their position on the bill, that it is not a serious crime and that a foreign national who has raped a senior citizen should be able to delay his deportation. We respectfully disagree. We suggest that the moment the penal sentence is done, in this case that of Mr. Guzman, the person should be taken in a paddy wagon from prison to the plane and removed from Canada because they have lost the right to be here.

The opposition also says that the bill strips due process away from the accused. Again, that could only be said by people who have not read the bill. The people affected by losing the IAD appeal in the bill have already received all of the natural justice and due process available in the Canadian criminal justice system, fully compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have an appeal right. They can appeal their criminal conviction. They can appeal their penal sentence. All we are saying is that once Canada's fair criminal justice system has decided they are a serious criminal, they should not be able to appeal their deportation order because they have abused the privilege of staying in Canada.

The member for Winnipeg North keeps suggesting that one case we raised, that of Clinton Gayle, is not relevant to the bill. Clinton Gayle was a Jamaican criminal, a repeat criminal, who, after years of avoiding deportation, murdered Toronto police constable Todd Baylis and shot another police officer.

Let me be clear: On November 6, 1989, Clinton Gayle was convicted of the offence of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years less one day. Those are the kinds of sentences that have led to the IAD appeals. Often courts have given sentences of two years less a day specifically to give access to IAD appeals. Indeed, Mr. Gayle used that loophole and on March 1, 1991, the deportation order was filed against him and on that same day he filed an appeal against the decision. It took 16 months, until June 29, 1992, for the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB to dismiss the appeal of his deportation order.

It is true that after 1992, through incompetence on the part of law enforcement agencies, he was not removed. He ought to have been removed. However, here is the point. If Bill C-43 had been in place back in 1991-1992, the paddy wagon would have gone to the prison on the last day of Mr. Gayle's custodial sentence, put him in the back and taken him to Lester B. Pearson Airport and put him on a plane back to Jamaica. He would never have been allowed to get out on our streets in the first place and Todd Baylis would be alive today.

Yes, he ought to have been removed in 1992, but he never should have been able to delay his deportation in the first place. That is the point. That is why the Canadian Association of Police supports Bill C-43. It is why the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police endorses the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

It is also why victim advocacy groups support this bill.

Here is a lovely one from the opposition. We heard them quote Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar Association expressing concern that the bill would no longer allow access to applications for permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for people who have been found to be involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious human rights violations and organized criminality.

We are so generous, some would say generous to a fault, in our country that even many of these people have had access to our asylum system and that all of them benefit from what is called a pre-removal risk assessment prior to being removed. Everyone, even the most objectionable terrorists and organized criminals, gets some form of independent legal assessment on whether or not they would face risk if returned to the country of their nationality. That is how we discharge our responsibility under the convention against torture, the 1951 refugee convention and, indeed, the Charter of Rights.

We have an obligation not to remove foreigners whose safety could be at risk if they are deported.

We have a process for this. However, the humanitarian and compassionate process is in addition to the pre-removal risk assessment and in addition to the asylum process.

Only the NDP and Liberals could suggest that a member of the mafia, that someone involved in serious human rights violations--

Consider Léon Mugesera, a Rwandan national responsible for genocide in his country. According to our legal system and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Mr. Mugesera was one of the people responsible for inciting the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Rwandan civilians 20 years ago. It took us 21 years to deport Léon Mugesera.

I believe that one of the reasons for the delay is that he applied for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds twice. Léon Mugesera showed no humanitarian compassion toward victims of the Rwandan genocide. In my opinion, Canada is in no way obliged to provide special consideration on humanitarian grounds to a person who has committed genocide.

Quite frankly, I encourage the opposition parties to reconsider their foolhardy opposition to the bill, because if they do not, I look forward to letting Canadians know at the next election about the position they have taken.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, for too long, too many serious, dangerous, convicted foreign criminals have been able to delay their deportation from Canada for years and in too many cases have gone on to commit new crimes and create new victims in Canada. Canadians have had enough of this.

When people come to Canada and violate the privilege of residency here by being convicted in a court of law of having committed a serious crime, they lose the privilege of staying in Canada and should be deported quickly. This new law will do just that. We hope that the NDP and Liberal parties will listen to victims' rights groups and support the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, hold that change in government.

The NDP and Liberals have chosen to ignore the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, victims organizations, immigration lawyers and experts and have voted against the faster removal of foreign criminals act. They are voting to allow foreign nationals who break the law to remain in Canada.

With the final vote on this bill taking place tonight, can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please update this House on our government's commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me wish you and all hon. members a happy new year.

I believe that 2013 will be a very productive year in the House of Commons.

The House has been a productive place in the last 200 sitting days. Between the election and today, Parliament has seen three-quarters of the government's legislation pass through at least one of the two chambers, and in fact a majority of the bills we have introduced have made it all the way to entering the statute books. I do look forward to seeing the government add to this record of accomplishment.

On the question of Bill C-32, I will again offer to my friend that we could pass that bill right now, at all stages, if the NDP is agreeable. I believe that would be a reasonable course of action.

Today, of course, we are debating an opposition day motion for the New Democratic Party. Tomorrow and Monday will see us start to consider second reading of Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act. If we have time, we will go back to the second reading debate on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012. Wednesday will see us finish third reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. Tuesday and Thursday shall be the second and third allotted days. I understand that both of those days will go to the official opposition. Then, if we have not previously finished Bill C-52 and Bill C-48, we will return to them next Friday.

Finally, there have been consultations among the parties respecting a take note debate on the situation in Mali. I am pleased to move:

That a take-note debate on the subject of the conflict in Mali take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, February 5, 2013.

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.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I know, I can't believe it either.

Could the parliamentary secretary update the House on our government's commitment to getting Bill C-43 passed quickly?

Report Stage

[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—

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 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.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[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.

[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, 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.

[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 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.

[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...

[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, 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, during the report stage debate of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, I was shocked to hear several NDP MPs repeat that they do not believe that criminals convicted with a sentence of six months or more have not committed serious crimes and should not be deported from Canada. That is right. The NDP does not think that criminals convicted of crimes such as drug trafficking, robbery and theft, assault with a weapon, or even sexual assault, have committed serious crimes.

With today's shameful comments, they have made it clear that they, in fact, want to make it harder for serious criminals to be deported from our country. The NDP has proven once again that it will always put the interests of criminals first.

It is our Conservative government that is standing up for victims and law-abiding citizens and it is only our Conservative government that will put the safety and security of Canadians first, always.

Motions in amendment

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 Balasubramanium, 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.

[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, 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, 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.

[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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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.

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.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, far from me trying to defend the Conservatives, who have made serious mistakes in not going far enough with this legislation, the NDP is sending a very confusing message. The member showed this in her opening comments, when she said this was a positive first step. That is also how we see it, a positive first step recognizing there is a problem. Since 2003 it has been known that there is a serious need for greater equity in military justice. The principle of the bill seems to move in that direction.

Where it is confusing from the New Democrats' point of view is that they do not support the bill going to committee when they have voted for other bills for which they have wanted more amendments brought to committee. All I would do here is to cite Bill C-43, the immigration bill.

There again seems to be inconsistency from the NDP but now on this issue, and it would be nice to get some clarification why those members will not support the bill's passage to committee.

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.

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

I move That Bill C-43 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 4 with the following:

misrepresentation, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the misrepresentation was unintentional, for a period of five years.

As committee members know, clause 16 increases the penalty for inadmissibility for misrepresentation from two to five years and precludes a foreign national from applying for permanent residency status in that period. It would therefore also limit family sponsorship.

It's in the interest of working with government to get this legislation through and fix it that we are moving this amendment, specifically to make an exemption for those who might have entered data unintentionally.

Many witnesses have said that five years is overly punitive, especially where misrepresentation was made by an inadvertent error. The NDP members on this committee share this concern. The Canadian Council for Refugees, in their submission to us, points out that a five-year inadmissibility is excessively harsh in cases of minor infractions when a person was acting under some form of duress.

They offered two of many examples where this would be an unfair punishment. Number one is a woman who didn't declare a husband or child because of social and family pressures. Number two is an applicant who was not personally responsible for the misrepresentation because of an unscrupulous agent or even a family member who filled out the forms for them.

It is this second case I find particularly troubling. I believe that we must make sure to punish those who are criminally misrepresenting themselves and not victims of shady consultants.

While the CCR recommends that we simply delete this clause, we are proposing a very moderate alternative. Our amendment creates an exception for permanent residents and foreign nationals who are inadmissible for misrepresentation that is demonstrably unintentional. We think that this strikes the right balance.

We urge committee members to support this amendment to mitigate clause 16 from unintended consequences.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-43, in clause 13, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).

Chair, paragraph 34(1)(b.1) that you see was actually excluded from the original bill, and therefore we are inserting paragraph 34(1)(b.1) so that it in fact is consistent with the intent.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 3 with the following:

or who does not meet the requirements of this Act and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that it is justified.

Similar to our amendment to clause 9, this amendment seeks to restore the minister's ability to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds, including the best interests of children involved.

I want to point out that the TCRI, which represents 142 community organizations in Quebec, which assists immigrants and refugees, submitted that the complete exclusion of humanitarian and compassionate considerations in these contexts is contrary to Canada's international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, among other things, provides protections of family rights and security of the person, and as well violates Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While we may agree that dangerous, violent criminals should be removed from Canada as quickly as possible, we hope that committee members would also recognize that it is important to make sure the minister can still consider the protection of children in these cases.

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

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 7 to 16 on page 3 with the following:

or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that it.

Mr. Chair, we believe we need to address an issue here that gives us considerable concern. Both clauses 9 and 10 cause us great concern as they remove the possibility of humanitarian and compassionate consideration from the minister. The consequences of the best interests of an implicated child would no longer be considered.

In their brief to this committee, Amnesty International put their concern this way: “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...”.

The Canadian Council for Refugees points out that these inadmissibility sections 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.

New Democrats believe that the minister should not be relieved of the obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate circumstances, including the best interests of children. Therefore, we are moving this amendment that restores the minister's ability to consider these factors with the caveat that the minister has reasonable grounds to believe it is justified.

We think this amendment will help dull one of the sharper and more mean-spirited edges of this bill and at the same time will constrain the minister's duty to consider humanitarian grounds generally.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 8 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 3, the following:

(4) The Minister must, within 30 days of making a declaration under subsection (1) that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident, table in each House of Parliament a report on the reasons for the declaration.

To keep it short, Mr. Chair, in essence the minister would have 30 days to report to the House when an individual is denied entry based on public policy considerations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I am going to read it so that people are aware of it.

I move that Bill C-43, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 3 the following:

(4) The Minister must, within 30 days of the coming into force of this section, table in each House of Parliament a list containing the criteria of public interest that will be used to determine the policy considerations to be taken into account for the purposes of subsection (1).

Mr. Chairperson, ultimately this would require that the minister table in Parliament the criteria used to determine denials, based on public policy considerations, 30 days following the coming into force of the bill. I think it takes it another step forward. That's as opposed to putting it on the Internet and having the minister decide one day to make a change. There would be no real accountability to the House.

I would encourage members to give it serious consideration.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, when Bill C-43 first came out, it was one of those hot issues which not only members of Parliament but many different stakeholders interested in this whole file jumped on. The issue is one of public policy considerations and how wide open that was. There was a great deal of concern. Then the minister, quite a bit later, indicated, “Well, you know, this is kind of like what I mean”. I'm happy that he has something now listed on the Internet, but those are all things that can change quite easily also. People need to be aware of and concerned about that.

The issue before us now is not whether the government will vote down this amendment. I will be voting against the amendment. However, there's got to be concerns in terms of where this particular list comes from. Is it all-encompassing? Is it possible that something might have been missed? We don't know. To what degree did we afford presenters the opportunity to come to the committee and say, “You're missing this” or “Why would you include this?”, in terms of the amendment?

That's why I think it's premature for us to support the amendment, but I do believe it highlights the importance, in terms of the whole public policy consideration, which is a huge flaw in the legislation itself. If we really want to deal with this, I would suggest that we defeat the amendment and then defeat the clause itself, and send it back to the drawing board. That's what I would recommend to all committee members.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Quite obviously, I would like to support this amendment because it is extremely important.

I would like to respond to Mr. Dykstra, who thinks the amendment will dilute the minister's powers. I think it will only define them. We heard testimonies that alerted us and that made reference to concerns about the minister's discretionary power.

I think it is important to consider all these testimonies. We want to limit and define the concept of public interest more specifically. We would also like to define the minister's discretionary powers.

This is just to clarify. I think we wanted to be clear from the beginning. We spoke about improvements and clarifications to be made to Bill C-43. I think we still have that same perspective. It's important that the government can follow our lead with this amendment.

[Karen Clarke]

Mr. Chair, if I may, section 94 of the act already provides a requirement to report to Parliament. There are a few instances where it codifies what types of things the minister must report on. For instance, gender-based analysis is one.

In the proposed amendment is a requirement to add this as another item which the minister would be required to report on. It's something that's not currently in Bill C-43, but we do have the flexibility that we could report on and include the instances where this authority is used within that annual report.

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

Mr. Chair, to follow what my colleague mentioned, we're really trying to make proposals that are actually valid to strengthen the legislation that is before us today. This amendment actually does strengthen the proposed legislation, Bill C-43 by including criteria which the minister himself spoke about. As my colleague, Jinny, mentioned, when the minister came to this committee, he introduced those suggested guidelines and even hinted to us that, as the committee, maybe we should look at putting it into the legislation.

We're taking his lead on this really when he suggested that maybe the committee would want to put it in the legislation. Rather than leaving it to the arbitrary discretion of the minister and broad-based public policy considerations that are still not really defined, I think it makes sense to put these into the legislation itself. It allows it to be more clear and transparent, and it moves us away from a precarious path of giving the minister more arbitrary power. Once again, it's one minister with an extremely high amount of arbitrary power. I do hope that our colleagues in the Conservative Party would support this amendment. It is a very reasonable amendment that looks to make this legislation work. It would strengthen this piece of legislation which is what we're all working towards.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, we agree that if the government is going to use public policy considerations in order to deny entry, the criteria should be well defined in the legislation, but we also want to ensure the framework is one which is carefully reviewed and discussed in its own committee study.

We heard very little of what should be considered or included specifically in the framework in clause 8. As such, we'll be voting against this NDP amendment as well as the clause in Bill C-43 itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, with this amendment, we are proposing to do two very important things to limit the overly broad ministerial power to declare a foreign national inadmissible based on public policy considerations.

First, we suggest codifying word for word in the legislation the minister's own guidelines that he presented to this committee. When Minister Jason Kenney visited us on October 24, he suggested this approach when he said, “The committee may recommend that we codify these guidelines in the bill...”. We hope that committee members will agree to do just that.

Second, and perhaps more important, this amendment introduces a new threshold for the exercise of this power. Specifically, the minister must have reason to believe that a foreign national meets one of the listed requirements in the guidelines.

There were many witnesses who raised serious concerns about this part of Bill C-43 , but I would like to highlight the concerns set out in the submission by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who said:

The Minister would be granted broad authority to deny entry to a high profile speaker on purely ideological or political grounds. Such a decision would engage the Charter protected freedom of expression and freedom of association of all Canadians.… In our view this provision has serious procedural flaws which undermine the rule of law, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

We concur with some of these criticisms and suggest that the current language is too broad and discretionary. Therefore, we would ask members to consider this very reasonable amendment to curb this overly broad ministerial power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43 in clause 5 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:

(2.2) The following conditions apply in respect of any interview conducted in accordance with subsection (2.1):

(a) the foreign national has a right to counsel;

(b) any information procured and used to impair the liberty or security of the foreign national, or any third party, is subject to a fair and impartial review process, including requirements for the retention of interview notes; and

(c) the interview is conducted in a fair and impartial manner that promotes accountability.

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

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 14 on page 2 with the following:

must answer truthfully all questions relevant to the application put to them

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have proposed nine very reasonable amendments which, if accepted, would help produce a more balanced piece of legislation. We hope members will give them fair and honest consideration. We remain committed to working with the government to make sure serious violent offenders are removed from Canada as quickly as possible, but we need to curb the excessive power this bill gives the minister and restore some due process rights to newcomers. Our amendments do just that.

It was clear from the testimony we heard that Bill C-43 is not a silver bullet when it comes to public safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 63, Monday, November 26, 2012.

This meeting is televised pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012. We are in the process of clause-by-clause study of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I presume you have all received the amendments from the different caucuses. The committee's clerk has received 23 amendments. One is from the government; nine are from the New Democratic Party; and thirteen are from the Liberal Party.

You will note that some amendments concern the same lines. The NDP amendments came first, so the NDP will have the first opportunity to.... It's nothing against you personally, Mr. Lamoureux, but that's the process.

Some of the amendments will have the same intent, so we'll have a general discussion before we vote.

Those are my preliminary remarks. We will postpone clause 1, as pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), that will go to the end of our deliberations.

We have three clauses for which there are no amendments. We'll try this and see how it goes.

Shall clauses 2, 3, and 4 carry?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 62. This meeting is televised.

We're studying Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We have Mr. Richard Kurland, who is a policy analyst and lawyer. He has been here many times. We also have Ahmed Hussen, who is the national president of the Canadian Somali Congress.

Mr. Kurland, we'll let you go first, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Freeman, our time has expired. We probably could go on for quite a while. You have raised some great points on all sides.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for making their presentations to us. Thank you very much.

Before I adjourn the meeting, we will have one hour of Bill C-43 on Wednesday. We will have one hour of supplementary estimates. The minister will come for the final hour.

Tomorrow morning we will consider Bill C-45.

The meeting is adjourned.

[RAdm Donald Loren]

Compliance is a difficult subject, whether it be in the workplace or in the government. Review of compliance is imperative if you have a set of instructions and directives to comply with. No one would ever argue that compliance is not a prerequisite for an effectively operating function.

The question is whether you can legislate compliance. It depends on what you want a law like Bill C-43 to do. What is it you want your immigration system to do? Why do you want immigrants to come to Canada?

In the United States, I would suspect the purpose of an immigration system is to protect the United States and its citizens in accordance with the constitution, and to make the United States a better place by bringing in people that give us diversity, strength, and capability, and make us a better nation.

You as legislators must ensure that policies are in place to provide the agencies, whether they be federal, state, or local, with the tools and resources necessary to carry out those policies and comply with the intent and purpose of the law. In the case of the United States, the purpose is to protect the United States and make it better.

It's very difficult to get down and deal with each of the eaches, not that my own Congress doesn't attempt to do that frequently, and not that it might not be warranted in some instances.

[Rear-Admiral, Retired) Donald Loren (Senior Distinguished Faculty, Centre of Excellence in Security, Resilience, and Intelligence, Schulich Executive Education Centre, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

As a great friend of Canada, I am greatly pleased to be here again. As before, it is at my colleague's request that I appear before you. All comments made by me today are my own and are not reflective of any of the organizations that I may be affiliated with.

I recognize that today's focus is on Bill C-43, but as I have noted in my previous testimonies before this committee, I am not here to address the law specifically, as it would be inappropriate for me as an American to do so. What I wish to offer today to all of you is a perspective on how my own country has dealt with similar issues, including challenges and lessons learned, and the factors we considered in our own decision-making process.

As deputy director for operations support at the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center and as deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland security integration, I was able to see first-hand how immigration patterns in my own country have changed over the years. While these pattern changes do not mirror Canada's, I am certain there are many commonalities between our nations.

As is the case for many of you here in Canada, my own ancestors in the United States came from the old world. In my own case, my great-grandparents and grandparents immigrated to the United States from Europe. But is the concept of immigration the same today as it was when my ancestors crossed the ocean?

The long journey of past immigrants had a profound and irreversible effect on their lives. Moving to the new world, to places like the United States, Canada, and Australia, was driven by establishing permanent integration into a western society founded on the principles of fundamental freedoms, the right to own property, and the ability to live a prosperous life. Also, the immigrants' intent rarely included plans to travel back and forth between country of origin and country of immigration. Rather, it was to pick up and leave for good.

Immigrants left their homeland knowing full well they might never see their family again. Upon arrival at places like Ellis Island, Halifax, and Fremantle, immigrants strove hard to integrate by learning the local language, working in some of the harshest conditions, and sadly even suffering the treatment of being labelled a second-class citizen.

Their tenacity and perseverance in these hard times has been woven into our respective histories and societies, highlighted by meaningful contributions we should all be proud of. But as my colleagues noted, we need to consider today's realities, which include technology as an enabler, and ever-changing intent.

Airplanes have reshaped immigration patterns and travel behaviour. Travel that once took two weeks and cost a small fortune now takes hours and is affordable for most persons. Communication was limited to the monthly letter and the odd short and expensive phone call. Today we place unlimited international phone calls for a flat fee. We have video chats. Even paltry amounts of cash that were tucked away in the pages of a book or under the mattress sent by mail have been replaced by instantaneous wire transfers and electronic banking.

Integration is different as well. Many pressures of blending into a community are gone, as we have local ethnic towns such as, in the United States, Little Italy, Greek Town,and Chinatown. When these towns reach critical mass, virtually every service and amenity is offered in the language and the tradition of the home country.

Satellite TV and the Internet allow the immigrant to follow events back home, potentially limiting their desire to learn English or French. Instead of reading the local Canadian or American newspapers, they follow news of their homeland in their native language.

Immigration used to be about work and opportunity. Now it includes family reunification as well, a once costly process for a sponsor who often was the original immigrant. Today there is a societal safety net designed to protect the newest members of our society, something that did not exist for the first and second wave of immigrants to my own country.

The above is not designed to cast a wide stroke on the immigrant's ability to integrate; rather, it is designed to demonstrate that the context has changed considerably.

Like my colleagues, I also believe that the majority of immigrants are honest, law-abiding, decent people with strong values. Statistically, the percentage of those seeking to take advantage or do harm to either of our countries is small, but as my colleagues noted, the asymmetry has expanded the threat spectrum and forces us to reconsider intents. I can say with strong certainty, given my experiences, that those who seek to take advantage of us and strive to hurt us use unbelievable levels of sophistication, some of which are not necessarily evident at first glance.

Manuals on how to abuse our judicial system can be found on the Internet. Shady agents within our own countries consult on how to beat the system. Preferred travel routes and entry points are identified and shared. What is even more worrisome in the 21st century is the coalescing of transnational organized crime and terrorism. What may seem like petty crime may be part of a more elaborate scheme to circumvent the safeguards of our respective immigration systems.

Lines have become blurred requiring us to do more. From a national security perspective, this can include the expansion of information gathering. As noted previously, HUMINT, human intelligence gathering, is vital to the security of the nation, and as my colleagues stated before, HUMINT should not be viewed as some shadowy intelligence operation, but rather something that can include immigrant community engagement by local elected officials and law enforcement officials, a tactic that if instituted properly can be very effective. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to ensure even foreign nationals get their day in court if they commit a crime, but we must have legislative and operational tools that remove them faster from our respective homes.

I echo the comments of my colleagues. Once a person is within our borders, it becomes much more difficult to deport him. All western democracies face this challenge, which is why I believe any legislative actions you decide should take account of the dynamics of our time. Investing in systems, processes, and most importantly, people who focus on proactivity and protecting our interests should be paramount.

In 2012 and moving forward, it is not unreasonable to want to know more about somebody who is trying to enter our countries. By the same token, you want to ensure that privacy and fundamental freedoms are protected and people are treated with dignity and respect, fully understanding that there are legitimate humanitarian and compassionate causes that must be dealt with as they arise. A proactive strategy which prevents unfriendly foreign nationals from ever reaching our borders is a strategy that reduces the need for back-end safeguards and frees up resources for those who have legitimate need of them.

Furthermore, measures that seek out malicious intent are not a great deal to ask of anyone wishing to pass your borders, particularly in today's context. I believe that Canada, much like the United States, will welcome those who seek to share our values and respect our laws. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to hold foreign nationals to the same standards we hold our own citizens.

In closing, both the United States and Canada have talented professionals who can assist with these issues. We must reach out to them with a view of supporting the human and technical resources required, insomuch that I feel it will ensure that the legitimate foreign national not only stays both in the United States and in Canada, but also makes meaningful contributions to both of our great societies.

Thank you again for having me here with you today.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

I, too, am a child of immigrants. I therefore echo my colleague’s comments, particularly that the majority of immigrants in this country are law-abiding and honest. They are striving to establish a better life and to integrate Canadian values into their own.

On a go-forward basis, I strongly believe that Canada’s future prosperity is directly linked to a sound immigration policy. That policy should attract the best minds and best talents in the world. It should welcome those who wish to adopt a Canadian set of values. It should also incorporate the strong values and beliefs we cherish, which includes assisting people based on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, no matter where in the world they come from. Furthermore, our society cherishes the security and stability of the rule of law. As Canadians, we have a right to be before the courts to defend ourselves, and so should foreign nationals who are here temporarily or on a permanent basis.

However, as a believer in planning for even exceptional cases, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. If the committee accepts realities, including the dangers of the world in 2012, as I and my colleagues have illustrated here and in the past, the amendments proposed in Bill C-43 should be characterized as the end point of the immigration process, not the starting point.

There have been recent examples of potential abuse of our welcoming system. Most recently, the Project Sara report, with which I'm sure you are familiar, by CBSA has warned of a significant level of welfare fraud and other crimes. Violations have stemmed from altered or falsified names, financial theft, manipulation to receive benefits even after deportation, and even the prospect and possibility that there's been human trafficking.

What the Project Sara report demonstrates is that abuse of our system is not only letting some of the wrong people into our country, it's also drawing valuable resources away from critical areas that should be addressed in the interest of those who should be admitted to our country. These include services to help our newest residents find jobs and do things such as learn our official languages.

Additionally, the Project Sara findings show us that there is a level of sophistication being used, thus exploiting our existing safety net. For example, travel patterns are no longer from point A to point B. Rather, there are intermediary countries being used. For example, a person will travel from Europe to Mexico, sneak into the United States, and subsequently enter Canada through border towns in various communities, with an aim to making a claim within Canada.

There have been calls for increased RCMP patrols along the border, including better staffing and tougher detention measures. I would suggest that these are warranted, for if we did a better job protecting our borders at all points of entry—land, sea, and air—there would be less need to focus on detention measures.

With respect, though, simply having more RCMP patrols along our borders does not address the heart of the issue. This issue is more complex as we look to appropriate decreasing resources. For example, to have increased patrols, the RCMP needs to have a level of insight as to where to patrol, what to look for, and who to be on the lookout for. Ladies and gentlemen, efficiency in this area is a function of the degree to which we have effective information or intelligence. Furthermore, increased patrols along the border address only specific cases, not the whole issue, especially when we have certain groups making disproportionate numbers of refugee claims at some of our country’s largest airports or ports. This is why I feel it is appropriate to request, if a CBSA official deems it necessary, a further review, in certain cases, by CSIS officials. With respect, if people want to enter our country, it is reasonable for us to want to know who they are.

To give you a micro perspective, there's a simple question that animates this perspective: Would you give to a stranger the keys to your house? Ladies and gentlemen, our house is Canada. We have a right to know who's coming into our house. We have a right to protect ourselves from potential danger from a person unknown to us in terms of their background or intentions.

I have stated that the amendments proposed by Bill C-43 should be looking along the continuum of the immigration process, not judged by a singular amendment. Increased RCMP patrols and increased staff at borders are of limited value if we do not have the information and intelligence backbone to support them. They are of even less value if our agency officials do not have the necessary training to spot potential issues.

The ideal situation is to make sure that potential abusers never reach Canada. Having said that, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that our defences will never exclude 100% of those who would seek to do us harm. This is why I see Bill C-43 amendments as final safeguards in a larger apparatus, which includes but is not limited to national security, law enforcement, support and assistance to the immigrant or refugee claimant, and integration into Canadian society.

If a foreign national is deemed to be a threat to national security, they should not be admitted into Canada. If an offence is committed by a foreign national, they deserve their day in court, but we should not hold them to a different standard. We should hold them to a single Canadian standard. For those born in this country, it is a rare privilege. For those not as fortunate, this is not a right. It remains a privilege. It is therefore reasonable to expect people who wish to come to Canada to have a clean record, just as it is reasonable for us to expect them to obey the laws and the expectations of this society.

Unfortunately, not only is our current system exploitable, but it is dated as compared to the systems of our international partners and allies. For example, places like Japan, the United States, and the European Union, along with a string of other nations, all require something as simple as photos on visas. Canada does not. Furthermore, we lack back-end safeguards that support our front-line agents. While we are seeking to make a uniquely Canadian policy, we should consider the benefits that other countries employ, particularly when a border officer deems a foreign national inadmissible. Within the Canadian context, according to the Treasury Board, rarely is an initial assessment overturned. In the period of 2009-10, only 3% or approximately 100 cases were overturned, yet 18% of those who were not overturned, approximately 600 people, failed to appear for their hearings, which had been granted to them as a right.

I have brought before this committee only a few issues, but as my colleague noted, I agree that Bill C-43 should be looked at in a more holistic manner along the entire continuum of the immigration and refugee process. Within that context, the bill addresses many of the issues Canada faces. Additionally, as we have all noted previously, the backbone of any apparatus used is sound information. Without this, we cannot make informed decisions.

At this point, I would like to ask a great friend of Canada, retired Rear-Admiral Donald Loren of the U.S. Navy, to give us his perspective on how his country has had to face similar issues.

Thank you.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Francisco, you recommended that the right of appeal be maintained. However, several of our witnesses stated that Bill C-43 would have too broad an application, in the sense that it could apply to “real criminals”, but also to young people who arrived here very young, as we were saying earlier. Several witnesses expressed the fear that this bill could have a disproportionate scope.

Is the right of appeal not a fundamental principle in our judicial process? What do you think?

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much, madam.

My sense, again, is that the way the words are now included in the proposed legislation, Bill C-43 does, under section 25(1) and subsection 25.1(1), provide for a minister to be able to make the decision to not have that person leave the country. I do think that safety valve is there, except for in very exceptional circumstances, such as if it's under espionage or under certain criminal behaviour, criminal organizational behaviour, and also with regard to crimes against humanity.

I do specifically believe that without the right to the immigration appeal division, there still is that safety valve. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what the main change in this legislation would be. We'd be basically back to the current system. That's the frustration I spoke of earlier, that unfortunately, too many people have been taking advantage of it.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I think it is important to mention that we all agree—and that includes the official opposition—on the need to process more quickly the files of foreign nationals who have committed serious offences in Canada. However, Bill C-43 does raise some questions and concerns. These involve the issue you referred to, Francisco, as well as you, Mr. Shore, which is the situation of youngsters who arrived very young in Canada. You also talked about the potential for rehabilitation. In my opinion, that is particularly relevant when youngsters are involved.

Until 1999 in Australia, there was a law which protected permanent residents who had settled in the country 10 or more years before from deportation. It guaranteed that people who arrived in that host country at a very young age and had grown up there and started a family were protected from being returned to a country they had never known.

Should we not include in this bill a provision recognizing the common law marriages of those who arrived in Canada at a very young age, in particular? What do you think of that?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez, Regional Director, Toronto, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

We are basically focusing on youth and racialized youth because these are the people we serve in the different community-based organizations, and this has been an issue identified by our members.

A 2010 Toronto Star investigative series on Toronto police data for the period 2003 to 2008 found that black men ages 15 to 24 years are stopped and documented 2.5 times more than white males the same age. The finding echoed a similar analysis of data the Toronto Star conducted in 2002.

The overrepresentation of visible minorities in the prison system is rooted in factors of poverty, economic inequality, and historical prejudice. That includes the over-policing of young black men, a practice that results in racial profiling. The existence of racial profiling by police is well documented. It has been acknowledged to different degrees by various police services in Canada, including the Kingston police chief in 2005.

Racialization of poverty has been growing in Canada, including among the working poor. Racialized individuals do not have the same access to the labour market as everyone else has. This was documented in a recent report on Canada’s colour-coded labour market, published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In their study, “Review of the Roots of Youth Violence”, Roy McMurtry and Alvin Curling have said that while poverty does not lead to violence, it can be one of the factors in play. They point out that poverty without hope, poverty with isolation, poverty with hunger and poor living conditions, poverty with racism, and poverty with numerous daily reminders of social exclusion can lead to the immediate risk factors for violence.

They note that lack of investment in services for those affected by these circumstances will have a deep impact on young people, leaving them with few choices for their day-to-day needs, even such needs as a quiet place to do homework. They note that these challenges can be exacerbated for those who have issues with language and cultural differences.

Clause 24 in Bill C-43 will have an unintended and disproportionate impact on black and other racialized permanent residents, particularly youth, a population that has been historically disadvantaged in Canada, and is already subject to routine suspicious scrutiny, negative stereotyping in media, and is often faced with longer sentences.

Corrections Canada's experience with visible minority offenders is described as follows in the study mentioned earlier:

In summary, visible minority offenders seem to be less “entrenched” in a criminal lifestyle than Caucasian offenders. They tend to have less extensive criminal histories, are incarcerated less often for offences against the person, and are lower in risk and need than Caucasian offenders. They also tend to have higher levels of education, less unemployment, and are less often single.

The study notably concludes that these circumstances may help in rehabilitation.

Bill C-10 has become law, and has introduced minimum sentencing. It will mean that even some non-violent crimes will carry a sentence of six months, making sure that those permanent residents will be deported from Canada.

Those who are subject to this provision can be deported regardless of how long they have lived in Canada. They will not have the right to appeal. There will be no consideration of the circumstances of the offence and potential for rehabilitation. There will be no consideration of the length of time they have lived here or their ties to family and community.

Individuals who have lived all their lives in Canada, particularly those who came as infants or young children, would lose families, friends and communities when they are deported to a place they barely know or remember from before. They will have no family or community connections over there. Unlike Canadian citizens, permanent residents will be punished twice for committing a crime.

We urge you to seriously rethink this bill, particularly the severe implications for young, visible minority Canadian residents. We strongly recommend that clause 24 be withdrawn, allowing the right to appeal to stand. We also encourage you to ensure that young Canadian residents are fully informed of the impact of Bill C-43 through avenues such as school curricula, as well as through other opportunities and campaigns, because this is going to have a serious impact in the communities that we serve.

Thank you very much.

[Amy Casipullai, Senior Policy and Public Education Coordinator, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)]

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to share our views on Bill C-43 with you today. I will start off with an introduction and then I'll hand it over to my colleague Francisco. Francisco is OCASI's Toronto regional director, and he is here in that capacity.

We would like to focus our presentation on the impact on children and youth, particularly children and youth from racialized communities.

We are very concerned about clause 24 of Bill C-43, which takes away the right to appeal for a permanent resident who is convicted of a crime punishable by a sentence of six months.

Canada's visible minority population was over five million in 2006. That represents 16.2% of the total population. Canada's racialized population is younger than the rest of the Canadian population, and the recent census numbers from Stats Canada show that the prison population grew by 17% between 2006 and 2011.

In December 2011, Canada's Correctional Investigator said he was concerned about the sharp increase in the number of black inmates in federal prisons over the past decade, an increase of about 50%. Statistics on the disproportionate numbers of incarcerated black and aboriginal individuals are not easy to find. The most recent set of comprehensive figures that we could find were from a 2004 study by Corrections Canada, which confirms that black offenders are overrepresented in prison while Caucasian and Asian offenders are under-represented relative to the general population. Visible minority women are also overrepresented compared to Caucasian women.

The Corrections Canada study also found that visible minority offenders tend to be younger and that they are at a lower risk of reoffending.

Now I'll hand it over to Francisco.

[Jacques Shore, Partner, Gowlings, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, and I thank you for inviting me to appear before this distinguished committee today. These remarks are presented to the committee in memory of my cousin, Lily Bergstein, who, along with her husband, Salomon Bergstein, witnessed the atrocities of the Second World War.

I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to support Bill C-43 in principle. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the government for tackling this difficult issue and for proposing some essential and long overdue changes.

With some amendments, I am confident that Bill C-43 can improve national security, public safety and ensure the fair treatment of non-citizens.

I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to support Bill C-43 in principle. I commend the government for tasking this difficult issue and making these changes which are long overdue.

I would like to concentrate my opening remarks on three specific measures.

First, 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.

This is not to say that a person should be automatically inadmissible to Canada if they have committed a serious crime. There is already a safety valve in the system to ensure that each person's individual circumstances are taken into account. Under subsection 25(1) and subsection 25.1(1) of the current version of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the minister may allow a person to stay in Canada even if he or she has been deemed inadmissible. This effectively operates to prevent injustice within the system. Bill C-43 maintains this important power.

This brings me to my second point. Clause 18 amends section 42 by adding the criteria that the minister may take into account when deciding if certain persons should be allowed to stay in Canada. This clause only applies to persons deemed inadmissible because of a security risk because of human or international rights violations or organized criminality. As drafted, the minister would only be permitted to assess national security and public safety considerations when exercising this discretion. I believe this is appropriate as undesirable criminals should not be permitted to linger in Canada.

In exceptional cases the minister will, I believe in any case, still be able to determine if a person may enter or remain in Canada by considering additional factors in the context of the words in proposed subsection 42.1(3), which provides “but, in his or her analysis,”—that being the minister's—“is not limited to considering the danger that the foreign national presents to the public or the security of Canada”.

I am apprehensive of the potential impact this legislation could have on permanent residents who have spent most of their lives in Canada. I believe that those living in Canada who are permanent residents must value and recognize the privilege of living in our country. One may ask how someone with no real connection to their country of origin can be deported. Other witnesses have expressed views and members of this committee have raised their concern on this question. However, I must conclude that with this privilege of permanent residence must also come the responsibility to be law-abiding and the will to make a positive contribution to our society.

While the ability of the minister to exercise discretion in such cases is important, consideration should also be given in another vein to implement measures to prevent this sort of situation from arising. Perhaps it is time to consider instituting a program to encourage good citizenship that would also motivate long-time permanent residents to apply for citizenship. This could help prevent the unfortunate cases where young permanent residents become misguided and engage in unlawful activities. This could also ensure that they are aware of the risks if they lack citizenship, often due to the neglect of their parents or guardians.

It is the right time to re-emphasize Canada's citizenship guide and its reference to Canada's four pillars: freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Our Canadian values should be viewed as paramount and should be emulated in the behaviour of those who seek to live in Canada as permanent residents and those who seek to become Canadian citizens.

My third point also deals with ministerial discretion. Specifically, I would like to discuss clause 8, which gives the minister the power to declare that a person may not become a temporary resident. Bill C-43 allows the minister to use his or her discretion if he or she is of the opinion that it is justified given public policy considerations. I believe this is a necessary provision. There are people who should not be allowed to come to Canada who nevertheless do not match any of the inadmissibility criteria established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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. The minister has proposed guidelines for how to exercise the power. These indicate that individuals who promote terrorism, violence, or criminal activity, as well as certain foreign nationals from sanctioned countries and corrupt foreign officials, would be prevented from visiting Canada. These guidelines respect the need for certainty and restraint in the use of a discretionary power.

In line with this principle, I would suggest that the guidelines be incorporated into the text of Bill C-43 itself. The current use of public policy considerations in clause 8 is quite vague and could be clarified. Such a clarification would result in three key benefits. First, it would give guidance to the decision-maker, the minister. Second, it would provide clarity, enabling the public to fully understand the law and its stated criteria. Third, it would give a potential judicial narrowing to the scope of ministerial power.

Australia has adopted a similar approach. In the Australian Migration Act 1958, the minister is given discretion to refuse or cancel a visa based on very specific grounds. For example, this power can be exercised if there is a significant risk that the person would incite discord in the Australian community or would vilify a segment of the Australian community. This condition provides certainty and transparency and ensures that the objectives of the act are met.

Canada can reap the same benefits by specifying in clause 8 the factors to be considered by the minister.

In summary, ladies and gentlemen, Bill C-43 is a step in the right direction. It will prevent criminals from taking advantage of our overly generous appeals process. However, I would recommend amendments to clarify the role of ministerial discretion to justifiably refuse temporary resident status. With some minor changes, this bill could advance Canadian immigration law in a manner that serves to protect Canadian citizens and instills fairness in our immigration review process.

I thank you, honourable members of this committee, for giving me the time to speak with you today.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 60, on Monday, November 19, 2012. This meeting is televised. We're studying Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

We have two witnesses before us today. The first is the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, represented by Amy Casipullai—every time you come here I pronounce your name wrong and I'm sorry; you'd think I'd know—and Francisco Rico-Martinez. Good afternoon to both of you.

We also have Jacques Shore, who is a partner with Gowlings, which I assume is the law firm. Good afternoon to you too, sir.

We will let you go first, Mr. Shore. You have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Clearly with Bill C-43 we are trying to keep foreign criminals out of our schools, out of our parks, out of our shopping centres, out of our neighbourhoods. We are trying to keep them away from our families.

The notion that somebody who breaks into somebody's home just to have some booze is not committing a serious crime can be quite extensively debated. The real crime is that you're breaking into somebody else's home. If your child were in that home when that break-in happened, it would create, in my opinion, potentially lifelong irreparable damage to your family because that 20-year-old decided to break into your home. He didn't walk into a store and take a pen and not pay for it. He broke into somebody's home. I would suggest that is not a good example in your case.

Neither is the case of invoking the name of Nelson Mandela, I might add, because we can get into a whole debate about that and about whether or not we as Canadians were supportive or not of apartheid in the incredible crime that was done against the good people of South Africa.

Having said that, I'm going to refer to Mr. Tom Stamatakis from the Canadian Police Association. He said that in his experience, criminals who receive a custodial sentence of six months or more have committed very serious crimes and are quite often repeat offenders.

Do you agree or disagree with his analysis?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think judges, in their wisdom, will screen out a 20-year-old kid who steals a little booze. That's kind of trivial. What we're really talking about here is a removal of serious criminals from Canada.

Are you aware that other countries, like the U.K., the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia, have provisions in place already to bar individuals who would harm the public interest and who otherwise are inadmissible? In fact, the provisions in a lot of those countries are far more broad and discretionary than those in Bill C-43. Are you aware of that?

[Richard Goldman]

Well, I have to confess, no. We didn't come here primarily to talk about the criminal aspects, but we are happy to talk about them, because we have some experience. I think the point is absolutely well taken. It's not too much to ask foreigners, foreign nationals to come here and respect the law. It's absolutely a normal expectation of Canadians. Again, I think it's just a question of proportionality.

We heard briefly in the previous presentation about sensational crimes. It seems to me when we're talking about murder, serial killers, and so on, these were already being dealt with by the previous legislation. We're here today to talk about how Bill C-43 could improve things. I'm not understanding how lowering the threshold for the right of appeal from two years to six months is going to have anything to do with serial killers and so on. Maybe you could explain that.

Again, really to show what we're talking about, the people with the six-month sentences are the kids next door who break in and drink some of your liquor or who break into the mall and steal DVDs.

[Richard Goldman]

It is very clear that they are not intentional in some cases. It may be made by a consultant or perhaps even by a family member. It can happen in situations that we can call humanitarian. Let me give you a concrete example.

A young Congolese woman was raped in that country when she was 14 years old. She did not declare her child. Her parents were accepted as refugees through family reunification. The young woman came, but she was ashamed to declare that she had had a child as the result of a rape. She was caught by that darned paragraph 117(9)d of the immigration and refugee protection regulations. She was helped to put in a sponsorship application on humanitarian grounds.

In certain cases, people do not declare family members. She could have been accused of making false statements. Luckily, she was not charged. If she had been charged and found guilty, not only would she not have been allowed to bring her little daughter with her, but she would also have been inadmissible to Canada for two years. Under Bill C-43, she would be inadmissible for five years. That example shows the extent to which the measures are much too extreme.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for coming to present to our committee today.

The more we hear about Bill C-43, it seems that we're not only creating legislation that's going to affect criminals, which is supposed to be the intention—when we asked the minister about it that was the intention; it's supposed to affect serious criminals, and we need to get them out of our country faster—but it may also be affecting or creating victims.

Could you speak to other examples where victims may be created or may be kept out of the country due to these changes in Bill C-43?

[Richard Goldman]

I don't understand why you're saying that because you don't like the rules, those are the rules. We're talking about a change in the rules. We're talking about Bill C-43 changing the rules so that someone like Salma can't apply on humanitarian grounds. That's what we're talking about.

[Richard Goldman]

Okay. Let's agree with what you said so far. The point we're making is that person with her profile was at least allowed to make a humanitarian application and is still allowed today, but would not be if Bill C-43 is adopted.

[Richard Goldman]

Please read very carefully the sections that we cite at footnote 5. She is caught by proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). The proposed subsections that you just mentioned do not apply to proposed paragraph 35(1)(a). She cannot ask for ministerial relief. Persons who are excluded from protection under article 1F(a) of the convention and therefore inadmissible on proposed paragraph 35(1)(a) have never been able to apply for ministerial relief. They have been able to apply for permanent residency on humanitarian grounds. Bill C-43, under clauses 8 and 9, is taking that away. We didn't talk about it under Bill C-31. Bill C-31 didn't take it away. Bill C-43 is proposing to take it away.

Moving to the—

[Richard Goldman]

She does. This legislation does many things.

One of the things it does is it takes away the right to apply on H and C grounds for permanent residence of people who are excluded under section 35. As it's explained in our brief, by being excluded from refugee protection under article 1F, she is automatically excluded under section 35. Our citations are there. The sections of the law are there. It's all there. The reason we didn't raise this when we came on Bill C-31 was that Bill C-31 didn't take away the right of people like Salma to apply on H and C grounds. This piece of legislation, under clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-43, does take away her right to apply for permanent residence on H and C grounds. That's—

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

I'm intrigued by your example. I suppose we're all using them to make our points here on the bill, and I appreciate that. I think all of us have the ability to do that and should be allowed to use examples to explain what we're talking about.

Salma, the person you're talking about—which is not her real name, but I understand the need to protect her—wasn't a permanent resident. She was applying for refugee status. You're relating a case that you could have presented under Bill C-31, when we did our hearings on that bill. I'm not sure why you're presenting a case of a refugee on Bill C-43, which specifically deals with those who already have permanent residency. She doesn't have permanent residency. If she was coming from a foreign country and was applying to come to Canada, and if she had been convicted in her own country or charged and it was believed to be true, she would not be admissible to Canada, but she could actually go to the Federal Court to try that. She could also apply under H and C because she actually isn't in the country yet.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this case in under Bill C-43. She's applying for refugee status, so she's not a person who falls under this piece of legislation. She'd fall under Bill C-31.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

Our previous witnesses stressed the need for much wider consultation on Bill C-43. They also mentioned that Bill C-43 casts much too wide a net. One of the witnesses advocated a triage process for crimes and for criminals. What do you think about that?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank our witnesses for being here.

I would also like to congratulate you, both the Canadian Bar Association and the TCRI, for the quality of the presentations you provided in order to draw our attention to the potential concerns and problems you see with Bill C-43.

We feel that civil society and those of us who represent that civil society are striving to make sure that the laws that govern us can be just, fair and respectful not only of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also of the obligations we have accepted, as you mentioned, by signing certain international agreements.

Mr. Goldman, in your brief, you express concern at what you called a culture of exclusion in Canada. More specifically, you mention the exclusion of failed asylum claimants under article 1F of the Geneva Convention and of those seeking asylum on humanitarian grounds, even when Canada Border Services Agency officers confirm that they have never taken part in any crimes and that they represent no danger for Canada. Under Bill C-43, they have to be deported, even if that exposes them to torture.

Why is the situation like that, in your view? On that point specifically, what recommendations could you make to this committee?

[Richard Goldman]

Okay.

Our recommendations are that clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-43 should be amended to ensure that persons excluded from refugee protection are nonetheless permitted to file H and C applications and have them fully considered.

Clause 18 of Bill C-43 should be amended to eliminate any restrictions on the factors the minister may consider in examining requests for ministerial relief.

Thank you.

[Richard Goldman, Refugee Protection Coordinator, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes]

Thanks, again, for your invitation. We are very happy to be here.

We're going to focus on one area of particular concern under Bill C-43: the denial of access to humanitarian and compassionate, or H and C, considerations to persons excluded from refugee protection and the denial of H and C considerations to persons found inadmissible on security grounds who apply for ministerial relief from such inadmissibility.

We'll start with a real-world example of a person who is currently being assisted by one of our member organizations.

This is Salma's story.

While still a student in her civil-war-torn country in Latin America, Salma was recruited into the student arm of the opposition movement. She helped run meetings, sometimes serving coffee and taking minutes, and was involved in organizing peaceful demonstrations. Years later, after peace accords were signed and the movement became a legal political party, she again volunteered during an election campaign. Salma says she inadvertently came across evidence of illegal activities and was targeted by party officials, who first threatened, and then brutally assaulted her.

She fled to Canada to seek asylum; however, the Immigration and Refugee Board found that her involvement in the movement, which had a guerrilla arm that had targeted some civilians during the civil war, excluded her from being considered for refugee protection in Canada. She was deemed to be “complicit in crimes against humanity”.

In addition, even though an official at the Canada Border Services Agency confirmed that Salma had never been involved in any act of violence and posed no danger to Canada, by the automatic effect of the law she also became inadmissible for permanent residence under section 35 of IRPA.

Canadian medical professionals believe that Salma was indeed the victim of sexual assault and that a return to her country would be extremely destructive to her mental health. She has no family to return to back home. Her only son and her ex-spouse have immigrated to Canada in separate immigration procedures.

Now, under the law as it stands today, Salma can still apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In examining such an application, an officer would have to weigh the factors present: the hardship for Salma of returning to the country of her traumatization; her medical situation; the best interests of any child affected; the links she has developed to Canada; and, of course, the nature of her activities with the organization with which she was associated. The officer could then decide whether to grant Salma permanent residence on H and C grounds, including a waiver from her inadmissibility; however, Bill C-43 would render this impossible. She could not even make an H and C application.

In the previous presentation, I heard it referred to that people make H and C applications to delay their removal from Canada. Just to be completely clear on this, an H and C application does not delay somebody's removal from Canada.

This is a matter of great concern to us. It is our experience that Salma's case is not an isolated one. Rather, it is our experience that the exclusion clauses are being applied by the IRB in an increasingly broad manner. Our experience is corroborated by a comprehensive academic study which decries the growing culture of exclusion in Canada. This study, “The Growing Culture of Exclusion: Trends in Canadian Refugee Exclusions”, which is cited fully in our brief, was published in 2011. It examined every exclusion case made public during the period 1998 to 2008. Here are some of the conclusions:

Exclusions at the IRB have increased dramatically during this period: from two cases in 1998 to a high of 114 in 2004 and 79 in 2008:

The Canadian government has aggressively pursued exclusion by intervening in IRB cases and it has employed ‘creative’ arguments at all levels of adjudication.

On the issue of complicity:

The cases reveal a troubling state of affairs: it is who you are or who you are associated with, rather than what you have done, that often provides the basis for exclusion.

Further:

These understandings of complicity go beyond the findings of international criminal tribunals, which ‘only dealt with persons most responsible for international crimes’. In this way, refugee law is being used to assign culpability at a far lower threshold than international criminal law.

Finally, the authors, who are two academics from UBC, conclude:

This fails to conform to the humanitarian requirements of international refugee law and to international human rights law, and it ignores the fact that many of the excluded claimants have never participated in violence or specific crimes, and would not have been excluded a decade ago.

That's the first part of our main concern.

The second part is the eliminating of agency considerations from applications for ministerial relief. We sometimes see people whose stories are very similar to the one I just told you, but who are caught by the inadmissibility provisions in a different way.

For example, even if the IRB had chosen not to exclude Salma and had granted her refugee status, she could have subsequently found herself declared inadmissible to Canada, under section 34 of IRPA, for having been a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe has engaged in instigating the subversion of force of any government.

I don't think I'm the first person to tell you this, but as has frequently been observed, even Nelson Mandela, were he not an honorary Canadian citizen, would fit this definition.

Under the law as it stands today, such persons can apply for ministerial relief from their inadmissibility. To succeed, they must satisfy the minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest. Historically the minister has taken agency considerations, such as the ones I was talking about earlier, into account in examining such requests.

However, Bill C-43 would amend the relevant section to read that the minister may only take into account national security and public safety considerations, but in his or her analysis is not limited to considering the danger that the foreign national presents to the public or the security of Canada.

Under the same provision of Bill C-43, which I talked about with Salma's case, such persons are also barred from filing applications for permanent residence on H and C grounds. They're barred either from asking for ministerial relief on humanitarian grounds or applying for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds.

We believe that this complete exclusion of H and C considerations in these contexts is contrary to Canada's international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which among other things provides protection of family rights and security of the person.

We believe it also violates Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child since it would eliminate consideration of the best interests of the child, which is normally an important part of H and C decision-making. It would also violate our obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, which protects women against gender-based discrimination.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll reconvene. This meeting will end at 5:25 p.m. and then the committee will go in camera to discuss committee business.

Our final witness is Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, Rivka Augenfeld, representative, and Richard Goldman, refugee protection coordinator.

You've both been here before on Bill C-31, and we thank you for appearing before us again to give us your views on Bill C-43. Between the two of you, you have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee.

Thank you.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

That's right. My understanding of Bill C-43, is that this particular bill really addresses serious criminality.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Over the last few days that we've been debating this legislation and doing this study on Bill C-43, I've heard several witnesses refer to the issue of permanent residence. Some people may come here at two years of age and decide they're going to enter criminal life at age 30. Some wonder whether they should be treated as a foreign criminal or as a local, even as a Canadian citizen.

In my opinion, there's a difference between a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen. If you're old enough to commit those crimes, you should know some of the benefits of Canadian citizenship. You've had plenty of opportunity in your lifetime to attain that.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association have come out strongly in support of Bill C-43, saying it will make Canadians, including the vast majority of immigrants in Canada who are honest and law-abiding, much safer.

Do you agree or disagree with the views of these police organizations?

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

Okay, that's a good comment.

The other issue that concerns me is in terms of people who are inadmissible on very serious grounds, such as war criminals, human rights violators, and organized criminals, people who have been able to delay their deportation by applying on the humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Can I get your comment on that, Mr. Pagtakhan? What do you think of the Bill C-43 provisions that will take away the humanitarian and compassionate grounds to delay a deportation for somebody who has committed—

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We're talking about the people committing crimes here.

Have you ever spoken to victims' groups or any victims' organizations about Bill C-43 and what their views would be? You are talking about crimes that may not be as egregious, but if you defraud a senior citizen of their life savings, it may not be murder and it may not be a capital type of offence but that's pretty serious to that individual because you have harmed them, probably irreparably. Have you talked to any victims' organizations about this sort of thing?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We're not always talking about just the youth. That happens; there's some of that going on and we understand that, but we're also talking about serious criminality. For example, there is one who has 60 counts of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstructing a peace officer, failure to comply with court orders. It took over five years to remove him after the removal order was given.

There are so many more including, by the way, trafficking, murder, and so many other things, as we've heard in the last number of meetings, including the murder of a police officer. You did say in your submission that we have justice, fairness, and compassion in this country and I believe we do. This is one of the greatest countries on the planet and that's why people want to come here. In fact, in the tens of millions, they want to get in.

Are you aware, by the way, that many other countries, such as the U.K., the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia, already have provisions in place to bar individuals who would harm the public interest and who are otherwise not admissible? Some of those provisions in those countries are broader and more discretionary than under Bill C-43.

[Kerri Froc, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform and Equality, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

The Canadian Bar Association is pleased to appear before this committee today to address Bill C-43.

The Canadian Bar Association is a voluntary association of 37,000 lawyers across Canada whose primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice.

It is in the spirit of this mandate that the members of our immigration law section have analyzed Bill C-43 and made the comments that we have submitted to you in writing and will speak about today.

Michael Greene, a member and past chair of the immigration law section, is with me today, and I'll turn things over to him to address the substance of our comments on the bill.

[Reynaldo Reis Visarra Jr. Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear. The last time I recall attending a House of Commons committee meeting was when my father served as a member of Parliament. It is humbling to contribute to the work you do in service to our country.

In my view, while not perfect, there are portions of Bill C-43 that deserve support, portions that should be amended to reflect greater fairness, portions that should be eliminated, and portions that members of Parliament should turn their minds to for their study.

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 keep in mind that to be found guilty of a crime, an individual not only has to commit a criminal act but also must have knowledge of what he or she is doing. Unless this combination of factors is found, there is no crime. 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.

In addition, these criminals were given due process as required by our court system. Members of Parliament should keep in mind that these criminals were initially presumed innocent. They were given the rights under the charter to defend themselves in a court of law and were found guilty by a jury or a judge. They lost their appeals, if they wished to file appeals.

Furthermore, we are not talking about criminals who have received only alternative sentences, fines, or probation. We are talking about criminals who have not only been sentenced to jail, but have been sentenced to at least six months in jail.

Nor are we talking about criminals who did not have the ability to argue their immigration status at the time of sentencing. There are numerous court decisions, including decisions from the courts of appeal in Ontario, B.C., Manitoba, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and Nova Scotia, that mention immigration consequences as a relevant factor in sentencing.

For these reasons, to say that convicted criminals have not had their day in court is inaccurate.

As members of Parliament know, before a criminal is sentenced, judges must take into account certain principles. These principles are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, judges must take into account the possibility of rehabilitation and mitigating circumstances.

In fact, the Criminal Code specifically states that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate”. It also states that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders”.

Permanent residents who commit crimes, like Canadian citizens who commit crimes, know the crimes they are committing.

One portion of the bill that requires amendment, though, is the five-year bar that will be imposed on a foreign national for misrepresentation. Unlike with the criminal provisions, the misrepresentation bar can penalize the innocent. Under the law, the general rule is that an immigration misrepresentation can occur without an applicant's knowledge. In fact, misrepresentations have been found when the applicant is the victim of shady representatives who have acted without the applicant's knowledge. In these cases, Bill C-43 would penalize the innocent.

A simple amendment to Bill C-43 that would result in the bar of misrepresentation applying only to misrepresentations made knowingly would be fairer and more consistent with Canadian values.

The portion of Bill C-43 that should be removed is the section that would allow the minister to deny entry to temporary residents on the basis of public policy. 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.

In the departmental backgrounder that was published in June, the department cited the example where the minister could bar from entering Canada a foreign national who would promote violence against a religious group. If promoting violence is criminal, these individuals, when they enter Canada, should be arrested and should be charged. However, the decision on arrest should not be made by a political actor but by the professionals in the judicial system such as police and crown attorneys.

If the conduct of a foreign national is criminal, he or she should be arrested in Canada. If not, he or she should not be prevented from entering Canada.

The last aspect I would like to touch on are the parts of Bill C-43 that deal with employer compliance. I realize that clause 37 deals only with the ability to create regulations with respect to foreign workers and their employers, among others. I also realize that before these regulations are enacted, Canadians will have the ability to comment on these proposed regulations.

However, members of Parliament should be giving thought as to what sorts of conditions should be imposed on employers of foreign workers and the penalties for non-compliance. Over 180,000 foreign workers are in the country at any point in time. This is a large component of the workforce, and certainty is needed for both employers and employees. As a result, before enacting such regulations, widespread consultation with business, labour, and other groups will be necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am open to questions from members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 58, on Wednesday, November 7, 2012. This meeting is televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, we will discuss Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the bells will ring at 5:15. We have some business the committee will have to look at for five minutes, so this meeting will end at 5:10, which means the first group will have a total of 55 minutes. The second panel has just one witness who will have 45 minutes. That's how it's going to work. This first hour will end at 4:25.

We have two witnesses with us this afternoon, two lawyers with the Canadian Bar Association. We have Kerri Froc, who is a staff lawyer with law reform and equality; and we have Michael A. Greene, who is a member of the national immigration law section. Good afternoon to the two of you. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Lamoureux, we have all the way from Winnipeg, Manitoba a witness who is an immigration lawyer, Reynaldo Reis Visarra Jr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan, I'll let you go first. You have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation.

[Angus Grant]

On the security issue, my response to that would be that we are ameliorating nothing except for the fact that we are eliminating the possibility of those who have been innocently found inadmissible under section 34 from having any avenue of recourse.

On that note, the one thing the bill really could have done and which would have been appreciated I think by all parties involved would have been to do something about the frankly scandalous delays that are associated with making decisions on ministerial relief. I understand the Minister of Public Safety is not going to appear before you in respect of Bill C-43. I wish that he were appearing, because frankly, he and all of the ministers who have preceded him, to be fair, have a very difficult question to answer, which is why they just plain don't make decisions on ministerial relief waivers. This is a profound problem and this is the single source of delays really in the process.

Mr. Waldman was talking about some cases that he's had where there have been speedy resolutions. I, too, have had cases where everything up to the point where it gets to the minister to decide has taken place within a year or a year and a half, or at most two years, and then it sits. It doesn't sit for a year or two; it sits for a decade. This, to reiterate, is a scandalous reality.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Do you agree with Bill C-43? I know you want to get a shot in on the long gun registry. That's already been passed.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association have come out strongly in favour of Bill C-43, saying that in their opinion, it will make Canadians, including the vast majority of immigrants in Canada, who are honest and law-abiding citizens, much safer.

Do you agree or disagree with the views of these police organizations?

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

Lawyers like to look at these things and sometimes we get lost in the process.

What Canadians want to do is support an immigration system where we don't bring in people who are charged with crimes like kidnapping, assault, armed robbery, rape, and offences that attract a sentence of 10 years or more in Canada. We're changing the rules under Bill C-43 to keep those kinds of people out and to make sure that if they're here, they can be deported more quickly.

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

Let me switch to another place where this competes.

Ms. Seligman related to us a hypothetical case where somebody who has grown up in Canada goes across the border and uses false identification to get into a bar in the United States. They are then charged under a category that could attract 10 years’ maximum imprisonment in the United States. We have other cases. Some of them are high-profile cases where people have been charged and convicted of crimes that could attract the 10-year sentence. The change in Bill C-43 that I'm about to refer to would make it impossible for somebody who is charged with a crime that could result in a 10-year sentence or more to come in.

What do you think about that?

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today.

It always seems so challenging to try to balance these things. We're looking at humanitarian and compassionate issues and we are looking at security.

Since you spoke last, Mr. Collacott, I want to put my question to you.

As I have been listening to the various accounts of different cases, the ones that alarm me the most are those that relate to a country I have visited, Rwanda; cases of people who are war criminals, and you mentioned two of them, who are able to apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration and then delay indefinitely their deportation from Canada.

That practice alarms me, because it calls into question our whole humanitarian and compassionate approach. It mocks it and suggests that Canadians may lose faith in areas in which we ought rightly to be giving people humanitarian and compassionate consideration in the judicial system, the immigration system, and elsewhere.

Can you elaborate on this matter of allowing war criminals to use the humanitarian and compassionate approach? This will be dispensed with under Bill C-43, and I would like you to comment on how that strikes you.

[Angus Grant, Lawyer, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers]

Thank you very much.

Distinguished members of the committee, it's nice to be back here, and it's even nicer to be here in person. I testified last month via video and it's much nicer to be here in person.

Mr. Waldman and I are both going to speak to Bill C-43. I will begin by expanding on the comments I made last time around, on security provisions, although this time with particular reference to Bill C-43.

I have no doubt that the proponents of this bill believe, on some level, that the changes that it makes will increase Canadian security. I'm going to talk about security, with reference to sections 34, 35, and 37, although I'm going to focus on clause 34. While I have no doubt that is the case, the position I would like to put to you today, which is also the position of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, is that this will categorically not be the case, and I'll explain why.

Bill C-43 makes two principal changes to the security inadmissibility regime and to the regime for determining inadmissibility under section 35 and section 37. First, it eliminates the ministerial waiver provision, such as it was, and replaces it with a new provision that will be found at proposed section 42.1 of the IRPA.

The second thing it does, which is something that Ms. Jackman talked about, is that it categorically and with no exception eliminates the possibility for obtaining a humanitarian and compassionate review of an inadmissibility finding under these provisions.

I'll speak about both of these changes, but in turn I want to reiterate something I said to you last month, and that is there is no doubt it's unambiguous and categorical that section 34 of the IRPA captures people who we would all agree are innocent of any moral or legal wrongdoing. This is not, as I said, a controversial point. It is something the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized in Suresh, in talking about the waiver provision.

Frankly, as refugee lawyers, we have all been in hearing rooms where the issue of Canadian security has not arisen because it is a given that Canadian security per se is not of concern to these proceedings. The problem is that people get caught under other areas of these provisions that don't actually touch on the specific issue of Canadian security.

I don't think we should have a conversation today about the fact that this is solely about Canadian security per se, because it's about much more than that, and people who do not actually pose any threat to Canadian security get caught under these provisions.

The second preparatory remark I should make is that as we all know, 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.

We can believe, for example, that someone probably didn't do an act, that there is a greater than 50% chance that someone didn't do an act, but because all we have to have are reasonable grounds to believe that someone did it, i.e., that there is less than a 50% chance, then that person can be found inadmissible.

We know that wrongful convictions happen in criminal law with criteria of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Think about how many people, then, could potentially be wrongfully found to be inadmissible when the standard of proof is so much lower.

With regard to the changes that are being made, first of all, the shift of the ministerial waiver provision that used to be at subsection 34(2) and will now be at proposed section 42, is essentially unchanged except for one bizarre provision that it's your task to consider and try to make sense of. This is proposed subsection 42.1(3) of the new IRPA, and it is under clause 18 of the bill.

The minister, in considering a ministerial waiver of inadmissibility will now have to make sense of the following provision:

(3) In determining whether to make a declaration, the Minister may only take into account national security and public safety considerations, but, in his or her analysis, is not limited to considering the danger that the foreign national presents to the public or the security of Canada.

There are four things I want to say briefly about this provision. First, it doesn't make any sense, and I think you really need to grapple with this, because it's an important provision. It says that the minister must only take into account public security, but may look to things beyond public security. On its face, I think this is something that is going to make the judiciary apoplectic about what in the world this means. It's extremely poor legislative drafting, and it's going to cause a whole world of problems for anybody who is tasked with interpreting it.

I think I know what they were getting at in drafting the bill this way, and that is that the minister wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to say, “You can't force me to look at anything but security, but I don't want to be forced to look only at security because I recognize that many of these people are not actually security threats. I want to look at anything else I want to look at as well, to render my decision. I don't want to be bound by security, but I don't want you to be able to force me to look at things beyond security.” In an Orwellian way, this is the only way I can make sense of this provision.

The other thing that is remarkable about this provision is that it is being made and put forward to you at the exact time that the meaning of subsection 34(2) is under review by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the case of Agraira, which was argued just a couple of weeks ago, these exact considerations, the lawfulness of a ministerial waiver and the role that a waiver has to play within the larger inadmissibility regime, are before the court. The lawfulness of it is before the court. I would submit that it is an act of legislative bullying, almost, to suggest to the Supreme Court of Canada to legislate on an issue the lawfulness of which has not even been established yet.

That's all I'll say about the waiver provision.

I'm going to move on, very briefly, to the elimination of humanitarian and compassionate relief.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Clause 8 of Bill C-43 proposes giving new powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. One witness expressed concerns about these new powers.

What does your organization think about these new powers?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Many witnesses have been very concerned about a number of provisions of Bill C-43. What aspects of this bill do you think contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the international conventions that Canada has signed?

Could you please give us more detail about that?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's fine. I'll give another example.

Another person lost control of a vehicle and killed a pedestrian while street racing. I'm not going to mention the name, because you probably won't know this person either. He was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day and ordered deported from Canada in April 2003, but was not deported until April 2009. It took seven years to deport him due to multiple levels of immigration appeals.

This is the point we're trying to address. These people do not belong in Canada. They have committed serious crimes.

I listened intently to your speech. I have to say that I am actually very alarmed that you believe fraud, impersonation, and theft under $5,000 are a “minor sentence”, as you put it.

The reason I say this is that I actually have another example. Joselito Arganda came to Canada from the Philippines in 1995. I bring this to your attention because you mentioned specifically fraud and theft. This person 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. He reoffended after leaving prison, and 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.

I'm alarmed that you think fraud and theft under $5,000 would be a minor offence.

Then, in the same conversation this first hour, you've indicated that you're very concerned that some of these people who may be deported may be the sole supporter of their family. I'm thinking of this particular person. If he was the sole supporter of his family, then it was through fraud, theft, impersonation, forgery, and so on.

I just have to put that on the table, because I'm very alarmed.

In the opening statement, you talked about Bill C-43, and the major problem you have is that we're taking away the appeal rights of permanent residents. I just have to ask this question: Do you think it's too much to ask permanent residents to not commit serious crimes here in Canada?

[Robin Seligman, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and thank you for having us.

I will speak for the first five minutes, and then Barb Jackman will speak for the second five minutes.

On Bill C-43,, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, let me start by saying that if this legislation was truly about removing foreign criminals, I would not be here today. The fact is that this legislation has very little to do with removing foreign criminals from Canada and has everything to do with taking away appeal rights and attacking permanent residents of Canada; yes, permanent residents of Canada, many who have lived here for a long time and have all of their family in Canada. These are not foreign criminals.

In addition, the criminality that this bill addresses can be relatively minor in nature to trigger the catastrophic result of permanently separating a permanent resident of Canada from their family in Canada, including being separated from their spouses and children indefinitely.

I will address the immigration appeal division aspect of it, i.e., taking away appeal rights from permanent residents of Canada. Barb Jackman will address restricting access to humanitarian and compassionate grounds, misrepresentation bars, and additional matters.

Bill C-43 takes away all appeal rights for permanent residents of Canada if convicted in Canada with quite a minor sentence, or even if that permanent resident is abroad and is convicted of, or has committed, an act outside Canada which, if done in Canada, would have a sentence of 10 years. This would include such offences as fraud, personation—that means using somebody else's identification—theft over, domestic matters. It does not matter if there's a conviction or what the actual sentence is abroad. A fine could trigger this section, and on its own, could make a permanent resident indeterminately separated from his family.

Let me use the example of someone who has come to Canada as a child and is now 50 years old. They are married, have children, grandchildren, and a home in Canada, and are working and supporting their family. They have never had any trouble with the law, but never applied for their Canadian citizenship. There are many people in Canada under those circumstances: Americans, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese. They just never became Canadians, although they came to Canada when they were small children.

On one occasion, this person makes a bad choice and gets into a fight, or drives dangerously, or commits theft under $5,000. If they get a sentence, even a conditional sentence of six months, no jail time is served, and they get a fine, or not even a fine, and they plead guilty—because it makes sense in terms of dealing with the criminal justice system and they would be advised to do so by most criminal lawyers. Approximately 80% of all criminal matters are pleaded to; otherwise, the system would grind to a halt. This has been given to me by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. This person would be deported from Canada without any right of appeal to the immigration appeal division, notwithstanding they have basically spent their entire life in Canada, and have no connections and sometimes don't even speak the language in their home country.

What the bill does is it takes away all appeal rights for this person. The immigration appeal division does not necessarily have to let the person stay in Canada, but at least it gives them a chance to consider all the circumstances of this person's case, such as how long they've been in Canada, the seriousness of the offence, if there's a pattern of criminality, family in Canada, what rehabilitation they've made. Then the immigration appeal division makes a fair and balanced decision.

Normally, in a case like the one I just described, the person would be allowed to stay in Canada and would be put on a stay of removal, basically probation for a certain period of time, usually three years to five years. If they break the law in any way, they would be deported automatically. I would hope and think that most Canadians would support this type of result.

I'm also going to provide for you samples of cases where people have obtained sentences of six months or more from the immigration appeal division. In many cases, the person has not been allowed to stay, and in the others the person has been allowed to stay. What I hope you will take the time to do is to read the types of cases and the types of people who are involved in these situations, who find themselves on the wrong side of the law. It may be a one-off situation of fraud and a situation where all of the person's family is in Canada. I don't think anybody would reasonably think that a person in those circumstances should be deported indeterminately and indefinitely from all their family in Canada.

I'll leave this with the clerk for you to look through.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to introduce our guests.

We have Barbara Jackman, who is an immigration lawyer. She's been here before on Bill C-43.

We have Robin Seligman, who is an immigration lawyer as well. Hello again.

We have David Matas, who has also appeared before, on Bill C-31. Good afternoon to you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We will start the meeting.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 57, Monday, November 5, 2012. This meeting is televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, we are examining Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

For the first hour we have —

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

I agree to a certain point.

I mentioned in my brief the amount of $31.4 billion. What I might suggest is to take a look at how many individuals are coming into our country and offending and reoffending, which is quite a high number, and look at the breakdown financially. What Bill C-43 would do is definitely strengthen that process and possibly free up some of the money that is going into protecting them from deportation and it could be used for training.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you both for being here.

Ms. Rosenfeldt, I myself have been a victim of a serious crime and can understand and relate to you and many members of your organization.

I'm going to ask a question about functionality.

We know from multiple Auditor General's reports that over and over again, in both CIC and CBSA auditors general have highlighted a lack of training, resources, integration of information, and monitoring of technologies. We're also seeing funding cuts now to the Canada Border Services Agency. I think all of these problems put Canadians at risk.

In response to the Auditor General's recommendations, the minister said that the department accepts the recommendations and will implement the recommendations that were made by the auditors general. We have not seen them in Bill C-43. It seems to me that providing CBSA with the training and tools they need is actually to provide preventive methods to keep us all safe.

Would you agree that allocating resources to CBSA and CIC allows them to do their jobs with the utmost success they could achieve to keep us all safe?

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

Certainly, I, too, was surprised as I was doing some research into Bill C-43. I was very surprised at how lax the whole process has been over the years. I definitely would agree that through Bill C-43 we would definitely reap the benefits, as law-abiding citizens of Canada.

I think that's why a number of immigrants choose to come to Canada, because it is a very safe country. Despite the many times I have appeared before committees and talked about violent crime and such, we do have a lovely country, and that is what attracts immigrants to Canada.

I would certainly not like to see the provisions in Bill C-43 not taken seriously.

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

You've touched on a matter that you've discussed before when you have been in front of this committee and which you touched on earlier in your testimony, and that is the question of interviewing people. You mentioned several things, including the fact that the large volume makes it hard to interview all of those who would immigrate to Canada.

As someone who has practised law, I was really surprised that in fact we couldn't compel people who were considered to be a security risk to be interviewed by CSIS.

Would you like to comment on the fact that Bill C-43 will make it possible for the first time to compel someone already flagged as a security problem to have a CSIS interview?

[James Bissett]

I agree entirely with that.

The problem is, if they appear at a port of entry claiming to be persecuted in their own country, we have no idea that they've been convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. No criminal check would have been done. They just arrive at the port of entry and claim persecution, so we let them in.

If the board found that they were in fact a genuine refugee, then the process would start for their landed immigrant status. Then we might discover three or four years later that this is a person who in fact has a criminal record, and a very serious one. Then we would start the deportation proceedings.

Again, unless Bill C-43 passes, this person would have full access to appeals and humanitarian review and could seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court and do what many others have done to stall and delay.

[James Bissett]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to appear before the committee.

I've had a lot of experience in immigration and refugee issues, almost 36 years. The most difficult area of immigration management has always been enforcing laws relating to the apprehension and removal of those who enter the country illegally, or remain here after their legal status has expired, or they have been convicted of serious crimes.

I believe the measures in Bill C-43 should receive full support. It's a long overdue and modest first step, I would say, toward reform of a system of removal that has proven to be quite ineffective. I have many examples of this, but perhaps the most recent one has been the Rwandan who was removed from Canada just this week, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. We first found out about him in 2002, and it has taken since that time to finally remove him after many reviews of his case and many appeals.

The most glaring example of abuse of our system is the case of Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad. I think I've mentioned him before in front of this committee. He was an assassin and a terrorist for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. He attacked an Israeli aircraft that was on the tarmac in Athens and used a machine gun and threw grenades. He killed a Jewish businessman and wounded a stewardess before he was overtaken. He came to Canada in 1987. When we found out he was here, we ordered his deportation. He is still here. His case is still before the courts.

A Globe and Mail report a couple of years ago indicated that so far his case had cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million. I doubt very much if we'll ever get rid of this guy. This is not a suspected terrorist.This is a convicted terrorist.

We should put Bill C-43 in the context of an immigration system that currently is undermined by the difficulty to remove people who have been ordered deported, and indeed to keep out some of the really bad guys who get into the country. There are a number of reasons for this, and I'll mention a few of them in the time I have.

Part of the problem, unfortunately, relates to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which indicates that everyone is entitled to due process. It makes no distinction between Canadian citizens and legal residents. Anyone who arrives in the country or even in our international waters gets charter protection.

Charter obligations however well meaning they might be, certainly inhibit the fast removal of foreign criminals and security risks ordered deported, since all of these people have a recourse to a variety of reviews and appeals. They can keep their cases going not only for months, but for years, in most, if not all, cases at taxpayers' expense.

As Mr. Neve mentioned previously, we have obligations under the UN convention with regard to removing people to countries where they might be mistreated or tortured. This is another instrument that prevents us from removing some of the very bad people in the country who should be removed. Germany and the United Kingdom have overcome that by entering into an agreement with the source country to ensure that consular officers from Germany or England can visit the jails and ensure that these people are not being mistreated.

Another factor is the high volume of immigration that we've been receiving in the last 10 or 15 years. It means that very few immigrants are even seen or interviewed now by these officers overseas. It's all done on paper. Many of the immigrants who are coming here are coming from countries where fraud, deception and forgery are almost endemic, so we're letting in a lot of people who probably shouldn't be here.

We also have an asylum system that's unique in the world, that allows anyone from any country in the world to simply walk into the country and claim persecution. All they have to do is claim it and they are automatically admitted. They are then entitled to a quasi-judicial tribunal that sometimes might take two to three years to take place. If, by chance, they are refused—they have to be real refugees—the difficulty of removing them is really immense.

The last report of the Auditor General indicated that there were over 40,000 failed asylum seekers, their whereabouts unknown.

Under-resourced enforcement personnel is another factor. 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.

In the last few years, we've also had a very high volume of foreign temporary workers entering Canada. Most of them are not given a criminal check. They simply come in. Most are not interviewed. There simply are too many of them. On December 31 last year, there were over 300,000 temporary foreign workers in the country. If they leave their employment, nobody knows their whereabouts or what they're doing. That's another weakness in our system. We have no exit system, no exit control, and no system to track people who come into the country as temporary workers or visitors, as many countries do. That makes the enforcement of immigration laws very problematic.

I'm going to end by saying that immigration, in my view, is one of the most important issues Canada has to face. It's one of the great and important issues of our time, not only for Canada but for many other countries in the world. There are mass migration movements taking place. Millions of people are on the move, and they are going to keep moving. Indeed, that whole migration movement will increase if climate change and violence continue in many parts of the world. We have to be in a position to deal with that and to manage the numbers effectively.

It's an iron rule of migration that people will move if they want to improve their standard of living, flee violence, or have a better future for their children. But if it's done in a chaotic manner, and the wrong people are let into the country, the whole system can be undermined.

In my view, if we can't determine who should get in, who should be kept out, and who should be removed, in effect, we have lost our sovereignty. That's why Bill C-43, despite its failure to address many of the issues I have raised, is, I hope, a first step in a basic reform of the system so that we can let in the people we want, keep out the people we don't want, and remove the people who have committed crimes or security violations in our country.

Thank you.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

You can tell my age; I was wondering where my glasses were and they're on my head.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee. I wish to thank you for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present to you today.

We are here appearing in support of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the short title, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

I will briefly tell you about our organization. Our mission is to promote a more balanced justice system through legislative action and public awareness.

Victims of Violence was founded in 1984 to advance the rights of crime victims and enhance the safety of all law-abiding Canadians by addressing problems in Canada's criminal justice system.

Through the tireless efforts of many volunteers, most of them victims of violent crime, much progress has been made toward fulfilling our mission. Victims of Violence has worked with government for three decades to ensure that public safety and the rights of victims receive due consideration.

Victims of Violence has worked with hundreds of individual victims, helping them navigate through the bureaucracy to find justice in the criminal justice system. Our work on behalf of victims of crime sometimes overlaps into different ministries such as the case today.

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 feel that in the long run the measures in Bill C-43 won't put more foreign criminals in jail, but rather they will keep the right people in Canada. That is what crime victims have been asking for.

Is Bill C-43 the be-all and end-all to society and immigration and refugee problems? Of course not. Is this all that victims want or need? No, but it is one necessary and important part of the equation.

Building an effective immigration system is a key component of any and all safe communities in Canada. Therefore, power must be exercised usefully, that is, to promote the greatest well-being of its citizens.

We feel that reasonable laws enhance the good of all and they serve the interest of all, while unreasonable laws are biased and they give all possible power of rights to a small part of the population while leaving all the misery and suffering to the other persons. Today we call those other persons victims as it relates to foreign individuals committing serious crimes in Canada.

Traditional justice systems invariably have not been ideal from the point of view of the victim; however, modern society has sought to provide extended protection to the victim through criminal laws and systems of social security.

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 Minister Kenney, 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 Minister Kenney on due process and natural justice in the rule of law. We also agree with Minister Kenney 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, Minister Kenney does not agree that they should get endless years in court and be able to abuse our fair process.

Victims of Violence is in agreement with the minister. With this bill, an end would be put to that abuse.

We feel that this bill sets a clear agenda to act decisively, as it is the right thing to do for our country and its law-abiding citizens. It sends a message that the rules of engagement have changed in Canada, and it won't be business as usual for individuals to come to Canada and break our laws.

I wish to bring to the attention of the committee an issue that has not been addressed in any of the research that I've done in relation to Bill C-43.

I would like to ask the committee to consider the costs that crime has on victims. The costs of violent and serious crime not only consists of taxpayers' dollars but the loss of human life, loss of family, loss of law and order, and the loss of faith in the criminal justice system.

In 2008 the Department of Justice released a report which estimated the costs of crime. The report stated that the tangible costs of crime, which included police, court, corrections, health care, victims' costs, etc., were approximately $31.4 billion, while the intangible costs, which included pain and suffering, loss of life, etc., were over double that, at $68.2 billion.

If I may, I wish to seek permission from the committee to table the report. I do not have it with me, but I will ensure that the clerk will receive a copy to be distributed.

In closing, we believe that Bill C-43 provides Canada's immigration system the vehicle to address the very real and immediate needs now facing the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, and to prepare the system for possible new challenges anticipated in the future. We strongly believe that if all the amendments in Bill C-43 are supported and implemented, the safety of Canadians will be further enhanced.

All Canadians have a right to live in safe communities. Threats to that right should be addressed swiftly and effectively by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Thank you very much.

[Tom Stamatakis]

I'm not sure I'm in a position to comment on that. I think the more information you have, including on the kinds of crimes that are being committed by these individuals, it would better inform not only the committee but also everyone else who's been discussing Bill C-43 or other issues related to immigration policy.

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

Thank you.

Bill C-43 also stipulates that permanent residents who commit a crime for which they are sentenced to six months' imprisonment or longer lose the right to appeal. This is a right they have right now, the right to appeal their removal order to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

We have heard testimony from various groups in this committee that various circumstances warrant a stay of a removal order, even for residents convicted of crimes. These circumstances include when the resident has lived most of their lives in Canada and has weak or no connections to their country of birth; the resident is suffering from mental health problems that have contributed to their committing the crime; and the resident's family's circumstances in Canada warrant a conditional stay of the removal order based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

How does your organization view the elimination of appealing a removal order for residents sentenced to imprisonment for six months or longer? Should the law give all permanent residents, including those convicted of crimes, the right of appeal to the IRB?

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

Thank you very much. Thank you to both of you for your presentations.

At the last meeting on Monday, the committee heard testimony from Mr. Andrew Brouwer. He's a representative from the Canadian Council for Refugees. Mr. Brouwer expressed his deep concern over many aspects of Bill C-43, including provisions that would leave people considered inadmissible on grounds of security and human or international rights violations without a mechanism to establish their innocence or to have their compelling personal circumstances considered on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

This question is for you, Mr. Neve. Could you please share with the committee how you think the proposed amendments to eliminate access to an appeal process for people considered inadmissible on grounds of security or human rights violations could impact refugees and permanent and temporary residents in Canada?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I hear what you're saying, by the way. A lot of my personal friends are police officers, and I've been on ride-alongs with them. I know what they face, especially in some of the tougher areas.

Now, sir, I was shocked to learn that for several years criminals who have been inadmissible on the most serious grounds, and that includes people such as war criminals, human rights violators, and those in organized crime, have been able to delay their deportation from Canada by simply applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This is in fact contrary to Canada's no safe haven policy.

I have a three-part question, but I'll do them one at a time.

Do you agree or disagree with the provision in Bill C-43 to no longer allow these most serious criminals to use humanitarian and compassionate grounds to delay their deportation? We'll start with that one. Would you like me to repeat that?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, Mr. Neve, Bill C-43 doesn't change Canada's commitment to remove people from the country, or to a country rather, to countries where they're going to face persecution, so I think you might be wrong to suggest that. Also, what I got out of your presentation is that you were talking mostly about the rights of criminals. I haven't heard you say anything about the rights of victims of these criminals.

Sir, what I'd like to know is, what is Amnesty's view on the right of Canadians not to be victimized by criminals, such as Mr. Stamatakis has just outlined?

[Tom Stamatakis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

It's my pleasure to appear before you today in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I'm appearing today in my role as president of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 50,000 front line law enforcement personnel from across Canada, serving in over 160 different police services. Our members include police officers from federal, provincial, municipal, and first nations police organizations.

While I understand that Bill C-43 has a number of wide-ranging provisions, I'd like to focus my brief opening statements on the sections of the legislation that deal specifically with the streamlined process for removing serious offenders from the country and why this is an obvious priority for our organization.

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.

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 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.

Once again, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation that you extended to allow me to speak to you today regarding the tragic circumstances of Constable Baylis' death. I would be happy to try and answer any questions you might have regarding the Canadian Police Association or our support for this proposed legislation.

Thank you.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here with you this afternoon and to have this opportunity to share Amnesty International's concerns and recommendations with respect to Bill C-43.

Amnesty, for well over 25 years now, has been actively commenting upon and making representations to Parliament regularly with respect to reforms to Canada's immigration and refugee laws. Our focus, of course, has always been to ensure that those laws conform with Canada's international human rights obligations, be that with respect to refugee protection, the ban on torture, the rights of children, equality and non-discrimination, fair trials and due process, and other fundamental rights that are enshrined in international law.

We certainly recognize there are always challenges and tensions that arise in ensuring human rights are fully protected in law, in policy, and in practice when it comes to immigration and refugee matters, be it the tension between speed and efficiency versus fairness and justice, or as arises with Bill C-43, by responding to concerns about criminality and security, but doing so in full compliance with important human rights norms.

Amnesty International is of course a human rights watchdog. We're not an organization with a particular mandate with regard to immigration or refugee policy or law enforcement and criminal justice. Our role is to remind governments, including the Canadian government, of those binding human rights obligations and the absolutely essential need to ensure they are upheld.

Amnesty International certainly accepts that it is not only permissible but often essential for the Canadian government to use immigration law to exclude and remove from Canada individuals who pose threats to the country's public security or national security, including when there are concerns about serious criminality, terrorism, and related threats.

Today I would like to share with you our concern that the approach to this that we see reflected in Bill C-43, some of which builds on or adds to provisions that are already part of Canadian immigration law, raises a number of real and pressing human rights concerns in three principal areas: accountability, protection, and access to justice. Let me turn briefly to each.

With respect, first, to accountability, Amnesty International has frequently, for well over a decade now, raised concern that when Canada is faced with the attempted entry or the presence of an individual in Canada against whom there are credible allegations of potential responsibility for serious crimes under international law, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, terrorism, overwhelmingly, immigration remedies such as denial of entry or deportation are used to deal with the case.

The end result very often, therefore, is the serious human rights accusations against the individual are not dealt with in a way that will ensure justice, namely, that the person would be perhaps turned over to an appropriate international tribunal, extradited to face justice in another country, or investigated and prosecuted within Canada. That runs counter to numerous international obligations that require Canada to ensure that such individuals do in fact face justice, including under the UN convention against torture and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

We are concerned that the provisions in Bill C-43, be that clause 8 significantly broadening ministerial discretion to keep people out of Canada, or the restrictions of humanitarian and ministerial relief and appeal rights in clauses 9, 10, 18, and 24, will serve only to increase dramatically the propensity for immigration remedies to dominate. If it is even easier and faster to deport, the chances of a case being properly considered from an international criminal law perspective will be that much less.

There is nothing in Canadian law at this time that operationalizes and formalizes the legal obligation to pursue extradition and prosecution over such possibilities as barred entry and deportation. We strongly believe it is time to do so. It is too important to be left to policy and budgetary decisions. Our brief, which we'll be providing to the committee after the hearing—it's not yet available in French—proposes an addition to the bill establishing a clear obligation to pursue extradition or prosecution in appropriate cases, in compliance with international legal requirements.

Let me turn to our concerns about protection. Bill C-43 restricts or removes a number of appeal and relief mechanisms which, at present, serve as a final opportunity or last resort to address concerns about human rights violations that may be associated with an individual's removal from Canada. These may be concerns that the individual will experience torture or other serious human rights violations in the country to which he or she is being deported. They may be concerns about the best interests of children left behind or about the disruption and separation of families that will arise because of the deportation.

All of these are fundamental human rights obligations, not just policy aspirations or social matters. These are human rights obligations found in such important international treaties as the refugee convention, the convention against torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all of which are binding on Canada.

Canadian court decisions have affirmed that Canada must take account of these international obligations in its immigration laws and practices. Restricting or taking away these appeal and relief options significantly increases the likelihood that these sorts of concerns will not be addressed.

The importance of keeping open these appeal and other relief avenues is all the more important when we consider the wide sweep of these exclusionary provisions. The elimination of humanitarian relief, in clauses 9 and 10, for terrorism, violating human rights, or organized crime may well apply to individuals who have never even been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, and may extend to individuals who do not themselves pose a danger or security threat.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, in some of its past research, has highlighted ways in which these kinds of provisions have impacted on past members of the African National Congress and on individuals who are members of groups that opposed repressive governments, such as the Gadhafi regime in Libya and the Pinochet administration in Chile.

The appeal right restrictions in clause 24 extend to permanent residents who have been sentenced to six or more months in prison in Canada or who have been convicted of an act outside Canada that could be punishable within Canada by a maximum term of at least 10 years. It is a very low threshold. As such, this extends to such crimes in Canada as growing as few as six marijuana plants for trafficking, making a recording in a movie theatre, or injuring cattle. When considering crimes committed abroad, it, of course, gives rise to concerns about unfair and politically motivated charges and trials, the use of torture, and other serious shortcomings that are endemic in the justice systems of many countries.

An appeal hearing is the avenue that can consider all of these dimensions: the nature of the accusations; the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the crime; the unfairness of foreign convictions; and human rights violations that will occur if the deportation goes ahead.

Amnesty International's strong recommendation, therefore, is that clauses 9, 10, 18, and 24, which propose restrictions on and removal of humanitarian relief, ministerial relief, and appeal rights, all be withdrawn. They are an indispensable means of ensuring that human rights are protected, but they also ensure and leave open the possibility that serious concerns about criminality and security will be addressed.

The last point I would briefly like to raise is the issue of access to justice. Removing these avenues for appealing or seeking relief from a deportation order are essential in that they are a means of protecting individuals from human rights violations, as I've just laid out. What they represent, which is access to justice, is also a human rights concern in and of itself. International law has long recognized that deportation is no casual matter. While it may not be tantamount to criminal sentencing, it certainly carries a similarly strong message of punishment and societal disapproval, with tremendous consequences for the individual.

As such, internationally and nationally, it has long been recognized that there must be sound procedural protections associated with deportation. The UN Human Rights Committee, which is the expert UN body charged with overseeing and implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has stressed that this means that anyone facing deportation should have an opportunity to appeal the deportation order, unless there are “compelling reasons” of national security.

The wide sweep of the clause's restricting relief and appeal opportunities in Bill C-43 go far beyond compelling reasons of national security.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 56, Wednesday, October 31, 2012. This meeting is televised. The orders of the day are, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. We are late because of votes. We're going to divide up the time between the two groups. We have two guests.

From Amnesty International, we have Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, and I assume Anna Shea is with you.

We have by video conference from Regina, Saskatchewan the president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis.

Mr. Neve, you're first.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Yes, you've asked me whether or not I agree with the broad principles of Bill C-43.

When I read Bill C-43, the broad principles that I see being articulated there are quick deportation, denial of access to consideration of circumstances of cases, no humanitarian consideration, no ministerial relief—quick removal with no consideration of context.

If you're asking me whether I agree with those broad principles, I absolutely do not. I believe in fairness and justice, and I believe that most members of this committee do, too.

Unfortunately, this bill isn't about those. This bill is about stripping away access to at least a chance to appeal to humanitarian and compassionate motives; to at least raise the considerations and get a decision. For those individuals who are currently eligible, if they refuse, that's the end of the day.

A question was raised, I think by Mr. Weston, about the cost and the endless delays, which is something we hear about frequently. I'd like to point out that even under the current system, if those people who are found inadmissible on criminal grounds and who get to the IAD and are lucky enough to get a stay of their deportation commit even one more offence during that five-year stay, they're out; that's the end.

So all we're talking about here is one chance for an independent, impartial person to take a look at all the circumstances prior to the deportation. If a person shows that they can't actually abide by those conditions, and they commit another crime, that's it. That's harsh for those individuals, and there are cases in which I would say even that is too much, but let's understand what we're dealing with now: this act would take even that away.

From my perspective, no, that's wrong.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to our witness, Andrew.

Thank you for your tenacity in appearing here for the third time.

Many of us who were not born here came to Canada for a number of reasons, either to seek a new land or to seek the new type of freedom that is available to us. At the time we come here, we appreciate what this country has to offer to us. I would say that part of it is certainly peace, order, and good governance. These are the broad, general principles of those of us who live in this country.

In this particular case, you have identified some specific cases of fairly extreme violent acts. Yes, we certainly remove these people who are not Canadian citizens—I'd say regardless of the time they have lived here—if they haven't committed themselves to being Canadian citizens; basically, this is what this act addresses.

But I assume that in general you agree with the broader provisions of Bill C-43. Let's set all those extreme cases aside. Would you not agree with the broad principle of what Bill C-43is trying to achieve?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I see no further requests for debate, so we will have a vote on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

To return to Bill C-43, Mr. Leung, you have about three and a half minutes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

In most parts, I think Mr. Dykstra articulated quite eloquently and much better than I would what I wanted to say.

As we all know, the budget was introduced on March 29, Mr. Chair. I don't know of another budget in the history of Canada that has had this much debate—as much as the first budget implementation act had, and the amount of debate we are getting now. In fact, Mr. Chair, I might add that the member from Burnaby—New Westminster, a member of the opposition, spoke for 13 straight hours on the budget, and the leader of the opposition just last week spoke for 45 minutes.

I might add that during debate in the House on this second phase of the budget implementation, the “BIA 2”, there wasn't any question on the immigration section that pertains to the electronic travel authorization. This is clearly an issue to be dealt with by the finance committee.

I totally concur with that approach. It's premature to come here at this time, and it certainly does not pay any respect to the witness who is here before us, nor is it relevant to the discussion on Bill C-43 that we're having. These are two different bills, Bills C-43 and C-45.

So I cannot in good conscience support the honourable member's motion. I will conclude with that.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I have been a practising public accountant for just shy of a decade, as has Ms. Bateman. When you come to debate something that is budget oriented, you need to look at it in its totality. You can't separate out the departments; it's built up into a total budget. That's how budgets are formulated. That's how budgets are debated: in a specific budget committee. Generally, that is the finance committee, whether you're in a corporation or a non-profit organization, because you're dealing purely with monetary issues. It is at the committee levels, such as these standing committees, that we debate policies and so on.

I don't see how breaking this up makes any sense, really, and besides, we're debating Bill C-43 here, not Bill C-45. Therefore, I will speak against this motion.

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

Thanks, Chair.

It took me about two seconds to find it on the website. There is a list of recent reports, releases, and documents, and the second most recent one—there are a couple in there—is on Bill C-43. I'm just realizing there are a few of them, and they were submitted to this committee today, this morning. It is absolutely possible that Ms. Sitsabaiesan's office did their research, that therefore she is doing nothing but being an excellent member of Parliament, and that she is not involved in any kind of conspiracy, as the opposite side seems to be alleging.

Thank you, Chair.

[Andrew Brouwer]

One of the problems with IRPA and its relationship to Bill C-43 is that IRPA right now, particularly in paragraph 34(1)(f), allows for a decision-maker to find a person inadmissible on security grounds on very vague and broad criteria.

I have many clients who've been found inadmissible because of membership in a terrorist group. For example, I refer to this report from the CCR on Eritreans. There was a brutal 30-year civil war for independence in Eritrea. Many members of various organizations fighting for independence for Eritrea from the bloody Ethiopian regime were members, supporters in one form or another, of the Eritrean Liberation Front or one of the other organizations engaged in that fight.

When they come to Canada, those individuals now make refugee claims. If they were indeed involved in some way in the liberation struggle, they are frequently recognized as convention refugees, in part because of the sad history of what happened in Eritrea after liberation in 1991, when one of the two liberation movements took power. Those who were part of the other liberation fighters, the ELF, were refugees. Those individuals come to Canada. They have given their entire lives to working for justice and independence and human rights. Under paragraph 34(1)(f), even if the extent of their involvement was teaching in a school, handing out pamphlets, or organizing meetings to provide updates on what was happening in the field, those individuals are inadmissible.

Under section 25 and subsection 34(2) of the current act, there was at least the possibility for relief from that very broad inadmissibility. There was a possibility that a decision-maker could say that, formerly, maybe some members of the Eritrean Liberation Front engaged in terrorism, and because you were somehow involved in supporting that organization, fine, it's broad enough that you are described. At least we have a relief valve that permitted the presence of those individuals who actually didn’t support terrorism, who didn't hold the gun and didn't engage in violence, to be found not to be detrimental to the national interest.

Bill C-43 takes that away. It denies any access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration, and it appears to dramatically limit the scope of the meaning of “not detrimental to the national interest”. By doing that, we expect to see many long-term members of the Canadian community who have been determined to be inadmissible on these very broad grounds facing removal.

That, from our perspective, is fundamentally unjust. These people, like Nelson Mandela, like my Dad, who was engaged in the resistance in Holland under the Nazis, are heroes, not terrorists.

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

Mr. Brouwer, to take it in the broad context, Canada is renowned for its generous immigration and refugee policies. Those generous policies rely upon continued goodwill from the general populace. For people who are elected to enact and preserve laws, we have to have some commitment to those things. To me, the most humanitarian and considerate thing we can do as lawmakers is to ensure that we continue a generous open door to refugees. We have people who have been admissible on the most serious grounds, war criminals, human rights violators, people whose examples we heard cited earlier before you started your testimony today. Some of them are organized criminals and they've been able to delay their deportation for years and years. We've heard it costs millions of dollars. My concern is that we'll lose the popular support of the whole refugee program if we allow such people. Furthermore, people who are parents, like me, average Canadians, want to know that serious criminals are being deported, especially if they're not Canadians.

I would have thought you would be coming here complimenting the government on Bill C-43, saying this is what we need to make sure that 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years hence, the people who follow in our footsteps are similarly defending a generous refugee system.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to be back before the committee. I've been here...this is my third time in seven months, I think. You've been busy; the minister has been busy. I think the fact that the committee has been this focused on immigration and refugee legislative changes is an indication of the massive reforms that are happening in the world I work in, so I'm grateful for this chance to talk with you.

On that note, though, I would like to mention that a number of us were surprised when Bill C-43 was tabled in the midst, as I understand it, of the proceedings that were already going on here at this committee with respect to the background study you've been doing on immigration security provisions. It looks as though there was a bit of a missed opportunity, because I know from a number of the witnesses who appeared before you in connection with the other study that there are a number of reforms to the provisions addressed in Bill C-43 that could have been proposed in the context of that study's report.

It would have been nice to have it all together in one package. That said, I'm going to comment on Bill C-43. I want to point out and make it clear that I'm not here as an individual this time; this time I am here on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, for whom I'm a member of the legal affairs committee.

The CCR is an umbrella organization that works on issues of refugee protection and the settlement of immigrants and refugees in Canada. I'm on their legal affairs committee, as I mentioned, and I'm also a practising refugee lawyer in Toronto. We've provided a short brief, setting out our main concerns; however, because of the short notice, it probably hasn't been translated and circulated yet, but I presume will be before you're done your study.

I'm going to limit my comments to a few of the issues that are set out in the CCR brief, and I look forward to an opportunity to address those issues as well as some of the others during the question and answer session.

Overall, the CCR is concerned that Bill C-43 contains a number of provisions that will lead to less fairness in the refugee and immigration system, that do not honour Canada's international legal obligations, and that deny people the right to appear before an independent decision-maker for decisions that go to fundamental rights and interests.

The inadmissibility provisions that are already in IRPA are extremely broad and catch people who have committed no crime and represent no danger to safety or security. Among those who are affected already are people who are inadmissible simply because they worked against a repressive regime or an undemocratic government in their own country. It is by now a cliché to observe that the anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela—Nobel Prize winner, honorary Canadian citizen—could be caught up by the revised section 34, as it is drafted.

The CCR has produced a number—two, in particular—of excellent reports on the impact of those very broad immigration security provisions, and the impact upon certain communities in particular.

The more recent report is called From Liberation to Limbo, and it addresses the impact of the provisions on the Eritrean refugees who have come to Canada. The impacts are profound and devastating upon those who are labelled as terrorists under the act.

Bill C-43 would deprive those who are labelled as terrorists of fair consideration of their actual circumstances in a number of ways: it does it by limiting the scope of the exemption from inadmissibility, known as ministerial relief; it does it by denying access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration; and it does it by imposing mandatory conditions when released from detention. It's our position that those changes are inconsistent with the charter and with Canada's international legal obligations.

The limiting of ministerial relief will prevent some refugees from making a refugee claim, leading to their being returned to their countries of origin, directly contrary to Canada's obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. The proposed new wording for ministerial relief—I think it's in clause 18—will also prevent the minister from considering whether a refusal of relief and a finding of inadmissibility will violate the charter rights of the individual affected.

Elimination of access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration will prevent consideration of the best interests of any child directly affected, which is also directly contrary to Canada's obligations under international law.

Bill C-43 also denies permanent residents the right to appeal to the IRB, the IAD, if they're sentenced to an imprisonment term of six months or more. This means these permanent residents will not have an opportunity to have an impartial and independent decision-maker consider all the relevant circumstances of their case prior to their deportation.

This is a significant denial of access. For example, with someone who came to Canada as a young child and has lived in Canada for decades, that is no longer going to be taken into account prior to the deportation of an affected individual. The person will be sent back to a country where he or she may have absolutely no connection. Likewise, as one of the previous witnesses noted, people who are suffering from mental health problems that contributed to the commission of a crime will also be denied access to any consideration of those circumstances.

I'd be happy to give you some examples of these cases that we have in our office. That denial of access to any humanitarian and compassionate consideration, in our view, is inconsistent with fundamental Canadian values of fairness and justice, particularly in those cases where we have very long-term permanent residents of Canada facing deportation. These are circumstances where it's exile, practically speaking, not deportation. They have no direct contact, no connection, anymore with the country of origin.

I'd like to close my opening remarks by reading from Hansard. This is from 2001, at the time that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act itself was under consideration in the form of Bill C-11. There was a comment made by a PC member, Gerald Keddy, from South Shore, when he was considering the impact of deportation of long-term permanent residents. He said this:

Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always thought being Canadian is about.

A little bit farther in his comments to the House, he said:

...surely in this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport them to a country to which they no longer have ties.

I would like for Mr. Keddy to be right, but under this bill it would appear that he's wrong.

Those are my comments.

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

As she was working through her list of examples, she said that she had generated a larger list and would be prepared to give it to the committee. If not, I'd at least like to get the list that she actually stated here at committee then.

The other piece was that we have had one witness who has indicated that they could not actually participate in Bill C-43. We had a suggestion that MADD Canada come to present to the committee. We have an agreement that in general, if there is a witness we'd like to add to the list, we bring that name to the committee, have the committee agree to it, and then add them to the witness list.

So I'd like to put forward MADD Canada as a witness here for Bill C-43.

[Irina Sytcheva]

I appreciate your bringing forward the mental health strategy and the great work your government did with the contributions and investments you made in this area. However, in the context of Bill C-43, we are not seeing any special provisions to accommodate individuals with mental illnesses or even to study the impact on this population with the proposed changes. That is what I'm saying here—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Very quickly—I only have 30 seconds, Ms. Sytcheva—are you aware that in many other countries, such as the U.K., the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia, they already have provisions in place to bar individuals who would harm the public interest but who are otherwise not inadmissible? In fact, the provision in these countries is much broader and discretionary than under this proposed bill C-43.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you for appearing before us today.

We are here to discuss an act that's going to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In fact, we are calling it the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. As you know, we are a very welcoming country, perhaps one of the most welcoming countries in the world—if not the most welcoming. Over the last five years, we've averaged about 253,000 new Canadians coming here from countries all over the world. In fact, last year the number was 265,000.

We have a responsibility to our citizens, which is that the people who we allow to walk our streets, shop in our communities, be around our children, and be in our schools are safe—that it is safe for our citizens. We do not have a responsibility to another country to take on those who would perpetrate criminal activity.

I have a question. I'm going to start with you, Ms. Taub, if I may. Do you think it is fair or unfair for us to require that in order to retain their permanent resident status—and potentially become Canadian citizens—permanent residents not commit a serious crime?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The minister was here last week, and I asked him a very simple question. I asked him how long he thought it would take an average Canadian to actually earn and save $3 million. It kind of sets the tone for how ridiculous it is to allow convicted criminals, foreign nationals, to remain in Canada at the expense of taxpayers.

I really do thank you for your presentation.

The next question I have is regarding the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association. They are obviously strongly in favour of Bill C-43, saying it will make Canadians, including the vast majority of immigrants in Canada who are honest and law-abiding, much safer. Do you agree with that statement?

[Julie Taub]

Thank you.

I would just like to expand on my role here. I'm here as an immigration and refugee lawyer, but also in my capacity as an immigration lawyer. 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. They give a conditional stay of removal, between two and five years depending on the severity of the crime, etc. Unfortunately, the majority of the clients I have represented reoffend or they breach their conditions. Then, when it's time to go back for another hearing, the minute I hear that they have reoffended and they've breached their conditions, I step away and I tell them, “I'm sorry, I can't represent you anymore.” I go through a lot of trouble, look at all the humanitarian and compassionate considerations, bring in their families, spend a lot of time, and I listen to their heart-felt apologies and promises, but time and time again they reoffend and they breach the conditions.

I have two or three clients left waiting for their hearings, and I have decided to remove myself from that area. This is based on the experience that I have had.

Now, I am here also as a naturalized Canadian, a mother and a grandmother, and a Canadian who's worried about the effects of criminality in Canada. I'm sure you've all heard the lists of all these people who've been in Canada, foreign nationals who have not been deported. One of the most outrageous examples would be Mugesera, the Rwandan war criminal who was found by the Supreme Court of Canada to be complicit in the genocide in Rwanda. He remains in Canada. They have still not been able to deport a war criminal implicit in genocide.

Then there's the classic case of Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, a Palestinian terrorist who was found guilty but released in some kind of prisoner exchange. He made a bogus refugee claim, and then when his terrorist background was discovered, he was ordered deported in 1988. We're 2012. He's had appeal after appeal after appeal and he lives quite happily and contentedly in Toronto. His last appeal to Federal Court was based on health conditions—he claims he cannot get the same health care in his old age in his home country as he can here.

Then there's Masoud Boroumand. In 1985 he filed a refugee claim, and then was deported in 1993 after three heroin convictions, including being part of an international drug trafficking ring. Then he made another claim in 1994 and 1995, and they were rejected because they thought there'd be no risk for him to return to Iran. He got married and went underground for seven years. Nobody knew where he was. He reappeared, and when they finally found him, the IRB changed its position and decided that Iran was not so safe, so he was able to stay in spite of his many criminal convictions.

I'm not sure how many of you remember Charles Ng in the 1980s, the California murderer who came to Canada. He escaped California custody after having been convicted of murdering several women. He was a serial killer. He escaped to Calgary and made a refugee claim not based on his innocence, but based on the fact that he might face a death penalty if he would be returned to California. It had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, five or six years, millions and millions of dollars, before he was finally extradited.

I have a long list, if anybody's interested. There's Singh Khosa, this Sikh permanent resident in Vancouver, who lost control of his car when he was street racing. It took seven years to deport him. Seven years. He killed somebody in that accident. A very rich man. He wasn't somebody poor. A spoiled young man racing his car in the streets of Vancouver.

These are the reasons I support this bill. 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.

I dare say that if we had Adolf Hitler in Canada, it would take years and years to deport him back to Germany. That's how bad the system has become.

As my friend has said, there is the mental illness issue. First of all, all criminal judges take mental illness into consideration; they must. They also take humanitarian, compassionate, and immigration issues into consideration before passing sentences; they must. Criminal lawyers are very knowledgeable about the mental incapacity full defence against any criminal charge.

As for not being able to afford this...two of my clients had mental issues, and I used to go to the Royal Ottawa to prepare them for the hearing. They were on legal aid, which is readily available. I've gotten mental assessments done that were fully paid for by legal aid, as were my fees. So those services are available to deal with issues of mental health.

There are those who ask, should we deport people for a DUI, driving under the influence? When somebody's charged the first time with a DUI, simply over the limit but there's been no accident, no bodily harm, they're not sentenced to prison. They're given a $600 fine. I have the Criminal Code of Canada here, and it says for a first offence, “to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars”; a second offence, “to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days”. They're still not deportable. For each subsequent offence, “to imprisonment for not less than ninety days”. We're not at six months yet. But if it causes bodily harm and it causes death, then it's going to be a sentence of more than six months, and then they are subject to deportation, as they should be.

I thought perhaps a representative from MADD Canada would be here, because I think they would have something to say to this issue about DUIs and deportation. I support them generously, and I did speak to one of the directors there. They had no idea this was going on. She told me that perhaps somebody could still have one of them come as a witness, that they fully support deportation of foreign nationals who are found guilty of a DUI causing bodily harm or death.

I support Bill C-43, and I think there are enough safeguards in place for the mentally ill. Lawyers are available under legal aid for both the criminal justice system and the immigration system. I have been very active in this field for many years.

[Irina Sytcheva, Manager, Policy and Community Relations, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario]

Thank you for having me here.

First things first. I will let you know who I am and about the organization I represent.

If I speak fast at any time, please do ask me to slow down.

I'm from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. We are a non-profit, charitable organization. Our constituency is individuals, families, and communities who are affected by schizophrenia and psychotic illnesses. In those terms, we are the largest organization representing that population in Ontario.

Through our justice and mental health program, we often hear about instances of individual clients and family members who come to us because they have a number of issues, not only mental health issues but also when they come in contact with the criminal justice system. Working with those cases, we become aware of a lot of the barriers and challenges people encounter when they're dealing with both of these situations.

In respect of Bill C-43, we also learned a while ago that compounding that is the immigration consequences of criminalization. So you're not only having to deal with the mental health system and the criminal justice system, you're also having to deal with the immigration consequences if you come into contact with the latter.

We often find that there is a general awareness of what mental health does and what mental illnesses mean for individuals.

I will take you through a very brief overview to contextualize why mental health is an important factor to consider in the context of this bill.

First and foremost, there is no such thing as a monolithic mental illness. There is a plethora of different conditions and symptoms, and everybody experiences it individually.

Mental illnesses are very prevalent, as I'm sure everybody here knows. They affect quite a huge chunk of the population. The most conservative statistic is one in five. About 2.5% could be considered serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, conditions that are really quite devastating for both the individual and the family when folks are not doing well.

Mental illnesses are episodic in nature and are what we call invisible disabilities. When people come into the immigration system, when they're dealing with officials, it's really hard to pick up who has a mental illness and who does not, because, again, often it's not visible. People do not often disclose it because of the stigma and the shame they may feel are associated with their conditions.

What we also know about mental health is that for many of the immigrant and newcomer groups, their mental health is exacerbated not only by the trauma of coming here, for instance, as refugees, but also through dealing with the immigration process and the stress that comes about when they're filing applications and not understanding the process, not understanding the language. There are also unique circumstances where people come from different cultures and have a different understanding of what it is to be mentally ill. They may not fully understand how the Canadian mental health system works, and they may not fit into the same definitions of mental illnesses that we have, so they do not seek treatment or they hide the condition and hence often fall through the cracks of the mental health system. Unfortunately, they often do come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Over the last 10 years, we have witnessed the proportion of people with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system here in Canada skyrocket. You have only to look at our prison populations, in both the provincial jails as well as federal institutions, to see that a large number of individuals have either diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health issues.

We have a government that has put forward the first national mental health strategy, for which we applaud them, yet we still have a long way to go to understand how mental health and mental illnesses play a role in every single policy and legislative area in Canada.

To go back to mental illness and criminal involvement, the relationship between the two is quite complex, but what we do know is that after de-institutionalization back in the 1960s, the mental health services pulled out. What we see now is that more people are being picked up the criminal justice system because our mental health system and addiction systems are so fragmented and so uncoordinated among themselves.

Often, people come into contact with the law for what we call minor crimes, such as uttering threats or being a nuisance, or just being extremely visible in the community where they live and making people uncomfortable. Some of them do commit violent, serious crimes, but oftentimes it is associated with an untreated mental illness. When people get the treatment and support they need, they are able to function and to lead full, productive lives.

Within the criminal justice system, we have mechanisms for picking up and diverting those individuals who need extra support. We're not seeing that in the immigration system. Hence, we have very serious concerns about the implications of Bill C-43, in particular for our population of individuals and families who have very serious mental health issues and unique needs that often are not acknowledged in an immigration setting. They do not come into play when people are considering applications for permanent residency, refugee claims, or not being deported from Canada.

In 2010 we did research to look at these issues in more detail to understand what was going on and to try to come up with solutions to make sure that folks were not falling through the cracks in the system. What we found was that our immigration system does not consistently take into account the mental health conditions of the appellants and the deportees.

We also know that mental health needs are not being considered from the perspective of what's going to happen to individuals should they be deported to their countries of origin. People are often deported to countries where mental health systems are non-existent. The services are not available, are inaccessible, or are inadequate. At the same time, the stigma associated with mental health conditions in those countries is quite prevalent, and people are subject to human rights violations. We dealt with one case just recently. An individual was sent back to Jamaica and was set on fire. I'm putting it out there, because we see these things almost on a daily basis. It's really hard to disconnect what you see in the paper about the crime the person may have committed from the individual behind it and his or her family.

I'm going to walk you briefly through some of the major findings of our research as they pertain to the consideration of Bill C-43.

First, we're finding that people with mental health issues often do not have the same access to justice as many other individuals. That starts when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. Oftentimes they deal with lawyers, if they're able to access one, due to the cost and other considerations, who are not trained to represent individuals with mental illnesses. They do not understand how mental illness came into play in their conviction or when they committed the offence. They are often advised to plead to a greater charge, because the advice given by lawyers is that if they go down the mental health route, they may be in a mental health institution for much longer. Many individuals make the choice to do that, on the advice of the lawyer.

At the same time, we know that when they get to the immigration system, it's really hard to get quality legal representation from lawyers who really understand how to address a client's mental health concerns and how mental health plays a role. We find individuals who may have filed an application and mental health was never flagged. They get to the point where they have exhausted all other avenues and they are deported. Only after the fact does someone say, wait, it may have been a mental illness situation.

Another thing we've seen is that often people are asked to provide proof of their mental illness. They are requested to provide psychiatric assessments and to follow through with quite stringent medication regimens or a regimen of seeing a doctor. For anybody who has ever dealt with the mental health system, it's quite an insurmountable barrier, because often it takes about six to 18 months just to see a psychiatrist for one assessment. For immigration purposes, the cost associated with providing a psychiatric assessment is quite high. It ranges from $1,500 to $3,000. The lawyer does not pay that. The onus is put back on the individual.

Again, that evidence is not being considered in immigration circumstances, and people are not able to fully express what their needs are, what their circumstances may have been, why they committed the crime, or why they need special consideration under the immigration—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon. Order, please.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 55, on Monday, October 29, 2012. This meeting is being televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, we are studying Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

For the first hour, we have two witnesses before us, two guests.

We have Julie Taub, an immigration and refugee lawyer.

Good afternoon to you, Ms. Taub.

From the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, we have Irina Sytcheva, the manager of policy and community relations.

Ms. Sytcheva and Ms. Taub, you each have 10 minutes to make presentations, which will be followed by questions from the committee.

Ms. Sytcheva, you may go first.

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

Thank you very much.

Minister, as I said, I really do appreciate your being here today. We don't often get the opportunity to sit with you in the same room at committee and ask you some questions directly. You have been very, very generous with your time today.

With the indulgence of the chair, I would like to veer from Bill C-43 slightly for a moment.

Minister, the question I have for you is this. At least two conservative MPs have sent taxpayer-funded newsletters to their constituents bragging about cuts to health care for vulnerable refugees. I asked about this during QP, and the reason I'm asking it again is because you were not here—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Sitsabaiesan raises some very important points.

I take seriously the recommendations of the Auditor General. My department has accepted them all and either has already started to implement or will implement the recommendations that she made.

I know the committee has been studying, prior to Bill C-43, the whole question of immigration security. I would point out that one of the real challenges we've had is the lack of biometric visas and the lack of an exit information system; these are the two biggest reasons explaining why we have had some unacceptable gaps in our immigration security system.

We have announced, in the context of the Beyond the Borders agreement with the Obama administration, our intention—and of course Parliament has given us the legislative authority—to introduce biometric visas next year, which will help us prevent readmission into Canada of deported criminals. Furthermore, an exit information system will massively improve our ability to police those who have overstayed in Canada, including those who may pose a security risk.

We're making big investments here. It's not just a rhetorical commitment; it's a big fiscal and policy commitment.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, we have. In fact, let me tell you something honestly. The genesis of this bill was probably shortly after I became minister four years ago—four years ago this week. My goodness.

I was approached by members of the Vietnamese community in Calgary whom I knew who were outraged that a notorious gangster named Jackie Tran, who had multiple criminal convictions, had successfully delayed his deportation through precisely these IAD appeals.

Jackie Tran, like many sophisticated crime bosses, was smart enough to get other people, often young people, to do his dirty work for him, so he never got picked up on a major offence such as murder, although it was well known that his thugs were responsible for many gangland murders of the kind you just described. The community was being terrorized because he and his gang, the so-called “Fresh Off the Boat Killers”—their own name—were going around terrorizing Vietnamese shop owners and people in the community.

The community came to me and said to me, “Why are you allowing Jackie Tran to stay in Canada?” I went to the department and asked, “Why are we allowing Jackie Tran to stay in Canada?” They said, “Well, Minister, here's the case, and here's how he's been able to delay his removal by appealing to the IAD.” Maybe there was a technical problem and it got sent back; then they went to the Federal Court, and that got sent back. It went on for years. I think the case of Jackie Tran went on for nearly six years of delay.

So, Mr. Menegakis, the departmental officials will tell you that I've been bugging them about coming up with amendments like this now for the better part of four years, and it came out of what I learned about the Jackie Tran case, about the victims—the indirect murder victims—of his gang in Calgary.

This is why, for example, Sharon Rosenfeldt, president of Victims of Violence, has said that Victims of Violence supports Bill C-43 and is very pleased with the government’s announcement of changes to legislation that would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country:

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...is an important proactive step in ensuring the safety of all Canadians.

I have a long list of other endorsements from similar organizations.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

What worries me is that Bill C-43 will certainly affect those 800 or so people. Can you confirm that it will not affect others?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, you're quite right.

I'll once again reinforce for the committee, Mr. Menegakis, that Bill C-43 does not propose to change the definition of what constitutes a serious crime under the Immigration Refugee Protection Act. It keeps the same definition.

I find there's a certain cognitive dissonance here. Some of the critics have been suggesting that a penal sentence of six months is insufficient to define a serious crime, but that has always been the law under IRPA. An op-ed written by our colleague Mr. Cotler from Mount Royal published a couple of days ago suggested that it was outrageous that we should lower the bar for serious criminality in IRPA to six months. We're not lowering the bar. We're maintaining the bar that Mr. Cotler himself voted for in 2002.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

My second question is about the principle of non-refoulement to torture, a standard that no national legislation must contravene.

Do the provisions of Bill C-43 comply with that principle and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? If so, how?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I see this, very much so, as an anti-immigrant bill. You have this sensational attitude of trying to make immigrants look as if they are a bad thing.

We can talk about the bogus refugees. This is something that you create, which sends very strong negative images in the minds of Canadians. We can talk about the illegal queue-jumping, or the boat people, in which you stand on the back of a boat, and you have mandatory detention, for which you did have to flip-flop.

Thank goodness you did do the flip-flopping. And it was because there was pressure at the committee stage from different organizations, many different law firms and so forth, that ultimately led you to make those changes. That is the reality.

At the end of the day, in Bill C-43 you term permanent residents, 1.5 million-plus individuals living in Canada, who call Canada home...and we call them foreigners. This is an attack on “foreign” criminals.

Then the minister goes out, Mr. Chairperson, and identifies these sensational cases—the rapists, the murderers, the pedophiles. Those are the ones in which the minister chooses to send this powerful message to Canadians.

What kind of message is he really sending to Canadians? What about the individuals who...?

Maybe there's a family of four where Johnny, who just graduated from university, has six plants of marijuana. That's the serious crime that's going to have six months and no appeal, and Johnny is going to be deported—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Well, no, I would not be open to scrapping our proposal to include some form of negative discretion, precisely because it seeks to deal with cases of individuals who are not otherwise inadmissible to Canada.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate your generally constructive approach, Ms. Sims, and do hope that there will be a serious deliberative and legislative consideration of the bill. I regret that you characterize the government's willingness to amend immigration legislation in the past as “backtracking under pressure”. Perhaps it's just that we're actually open and flexible to improvements.

It was a radical idea that we could actually improve legislation through the deliberative process. That's certainly been I hope my hallmark as minister, and I hope it will be so on Bill C-43, which is why I have tabled with you these proposed guidelines.

Now, let me say that the committee may recommend that we codify these guidelines in the bill, or that they be codified in regulation. But you're going to have to understand that there are implications to that.

So why can't we—to respond to your question, first of all—just allow border officials to apply the inadmissibility law? Because very frequently...and, you said, to apply the law, for example, of inadmissibility against people who might commit hate crimes. There are no grounds upon which to deny entry to Canada of a foreign national who we believe may commit hate crimes in Canada if they are not otherwise inadmissible—that is to say, if they do not, for example, have a criminal record in their country of origin for crimes that would also be crimes in Canada.

Now, let's say they've committed fraud crimes in Germany or something. That's something the CBSA can consider. But going around in a foreign country—you can pick any number of countries—calling for the murder of gays or Jews or women is not a crime in many countries, and therefore does not constitute grounds for inadmissibility.

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

Thank you very much.

Minister, it's really good that you can be here for two hours today. I know you have a very busy schedule and a very active file that keeps you and the rest of us busy.

Minister, I believe all Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent crimes in our communities. Newcomer communities, the vast majority of whom are law abiding and follow the rules, would be among the first to agree with this sentiment.

As you know, I made it clear when this legislation was introduced that as a responsible opposition we are ready to work with the government to ensure that criminals of all backgrounds are not allowed to abuse our appeals process. But I want to make it clear to you today that our support in principle at second reading is not a blank cheque, and I am serving notice to you today that we expect the government to work with us to make sure that we protect Canadians and respect due process and the rule of law at the same time.

I will be blunt. We have serious concerns about the bill being proposed here. We are concerned with both its effectiveness in dealing with the issue of non-citizen criminality as well as its extraordinarily wide scope. In particular, Bill C-43 grants you sweeping new powers. The last thing your immigration system needs is to be criticized even more. The reality is we have a good independent system for determining admissibility, and we don't need it to be replaced at the whim of any minister.

What you've handed out here today, the handout we've just received—and just taking a cursory look at it, what struck me is that what you've handed out here are just guidelines. They will still be guidelines to you, with the discretion resting with you or with another minister.

Three times since I became the official opposition critic for immigration on refugee health cuts, on Bill C-31, and again on this legislation, you have introduced sweeping reforms only to have to backtrack under pressure. It is a clear sign that these reforms are being rushed through without proper consultation. We are hoping that on this piece of legislation you will be willing to listen to the stakeholders and the opposition to ensure that we have a piece of legislation at the end of the day that protects both Canadians and the rights of newcomers.

I notice, Minister, that your presentation gives some examples of some very egregious cases, which we agree with you we would want to have removed. However, I always hesitate when we make sweeping changes based on a few anomalies, instead of trying to attack those specific anomalies by fine-tuning the system.

On the note of consultation and listening to the opposition, my first question to you relates to your comments in the media last week when you promised to engage members of this committee on the section of this law that would allow you to bar foreign nationals from entering Canada for overly broad public policy considerations, which, I think even you must agree, captures almost everything in the world. While we appreciate the olive branch, my question is, why do we need this at all? Our border services already have the power to bar people who are a threat to our security or whose actions constitute crimes, including hate speech in Canada.

Would you be open to scrapping this ill-considered part of the legislation?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Look, I think this is pretty cut and dried. I don't think this is complicated. If you come to Canada as a permanent resident, we welcome you. We're the most welcoming country in the world, and this government has maintained the most welcoming posture of any developed country in the world. We have, in fact, since we came to office, admitted nearly 1.8 million permanent residents in the last six years, and we have welcomed about 1.3 million citizens. It's unprecedented in the world and in our history, certainly in relative terms, at least.

In our generosity, we ask very little of people who come to join us in Canadian society. One of the very few things we ask is that in enjoying the privilege of residency in Canada, you not commit a serious crime. Nearly 100% of immigrants find no difficulty in avoiding committing a serious crime. Frankly, I think it's insulting to suggest that this is some kind of a burden placed on new Canadians or placed on permanent residents. I don't think it's a burden to avoid committing a serious crime.

There's some suggestion here that this constitutes a diminution of due process or natural justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every foreign national who's charged with a crime in Canada, every permanent resident who is charged with a crime, will get their day in a criminal court. If a judge deems they have committed a sufficiently serious offence to receive a penalty of six months or more, they are currently, under IRPA, considered serious foreign criminals and subject to deportation. We are simply saying we'll move forward with the removal, rather than allowing people to buy several years of delay, during which we see too many recidivists, too many repeat crimes, too many new victims claimed.

Moreover, I would point out that if you get that conviction at a Canadian criminal trial court, you can appeal that conviction to an appeals court, and if there are grounds, you could further appeal it to the Supreme Court. Similarly, under what we are proposing, once that conviction is established in law, they will no longer have this appeal to the IAD of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Let me point out that it's not only the IAD appeal. That's taking us about 18 months right now, because we have so many of these cases, so that buys them 18 months. If they lose there, then they make an application for judicial review of the negative IAD decision to the Federal Court, and that buys another eight or nine months, maybe a year. So we're often talking about two and a half to three years of bought time to stay in Canada. Having eliminated that, under Bill C-43 serious convicted foreign criminals will still be able to make an application for a pre-removal risk assessment. If that decision is negative, they'll be able to seek leave to the Federal Court for review of their negative PRA.

Frankly, I suspect a lot of Canadians think the streamlined system we're proposing here is still too generous for people who have violated the privilege of staying in Canada and have committed serious crimes. But we are, of course, committed to our fair legal system and our international obligations of non-refoulement, for example.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We do have a number of officials here, from both the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and Public Safety Canada.

Thank you.

Honourable colleagues, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration about Bill C-43. This piece of legislation is part of the major effort we are making to strengthen the integrity of our generous immigration system.

As you know, under the current government, Canada has the highest rate of immigration in our history and the highest per capita rate in the developed world. The vast majority of new Canadians, of course, arrive with every intention to abide by the laws of Canada and to fully integrate into society. They in particular have no sympathy for foreign nationals who arrive in Canada and who are convicted of serious crimes.

This is why our government made a campaign commitment to streamline the process of removing foreign criminals who have been convicted of serious criminality under our justice system.

The government has also recognized that some amendments have to be made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in terms of admissibility to Canada. This is a complex but significant aspect of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The goal of the amendments is to allow entry to Canada to honest people who are going to contribute to the prosperity of our country and to deny entry to those who perhaps represent a threat to our security or our public health.

I am pleased to present to you Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which responds to those objectives that we committed to in the last election, and indeed in the throne speech.

Through this important legislation we are delivering on a campaign commitment to streamline the process to deport convicted foreign criminals.

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. But there's a fundamental problem with the status quo. As long as the sentences for such convicted criminals are less than two years, permanent residents can appeal their deportation from Canada to the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB, and if they lose that appeal, they can appeal that through an application for judicial review to the Federal Court. This adds, in many cases, up to three years of delays in deportation for serious convicted foreign criminals.

Chairman, I believe that even foreign criminals convicted of serious crime deserve their day in court, but they do not deserve endless years in court while they delay their deportation from Canada. I believe that even foreign criminals convicted of serious crime deserve due process, but they should not be able to endlessly abuse Canada's fair legal process.

That's why, under this act, 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, the appeals division of the IRB. This legislation would also bar those who have committed serious crimes outside Canada that would be punishable in Canada from accessing the appeals division.

It is important to note that serious criminality is already defined under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as a conviction for which a sentence of more than six months has been imposed. There was some confusion about this during the debate on second reading in the House.

I emphasize that this bill does not change the definition of serious criminality in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It continues to be a conviction for which a sentence of more than six months has been imposed. The changes we propose are therefore consistent with other provisions currently in our immigration legislation.

To those who argue that any of this is somehow unfair, that we're punishing people for so-called minor crimes, whatever that means, or mistakes they've made in the past, we say that residency in Canada is a privilege, not a right. One of the few things we ask for you to maintain that privilege is that you not commit a serious crime in Canada. If, as a foreign citizen, you come to Canada with the privilege of residency and you commit a serious crime, let's be clear, you lose the privilege of staying in this country.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I regularly meet with members of our diverse culture communities, and they feel this particularly strongly. I'll just say as an aside that it's no accident that I made the commitment to this legislation during the last election in Vancouver's Chinatown at a press conference that I think was attended entirely by members of the ethnocultural media. We have seen massive support for this idea from new Canadians because overwhelmingly they're the folks who play by the rules, who come here and treasure the residency that typically leads to citizenship, and frankly, they have no patience for those who come here and abuse Canada's generosity by victimizing Canadians, and very often victimizing new Canadians.

I'd like to suggest to the critics of this bill that I'd like to hear them, for once, talk about the victims of these crimes. I'd like for them to contemplate or even acknowledge the sad reality that many Canadians, including many new Canadians, have been victimized, even through violent crimes, by foreign nationals who were delaying their deportation thanks to the kinds of delay tactics that this bill seeks to close.

Some critics, including the opposition, ask us to consider the hardships that criminals and their families will face. But do those critics ever stop to think about the hardships faced by the victims of crime?

One immigration lawyer expressed concern about the “monumental effect” that the removal of foreign criminals would have on immigrant communities. Frankly, I think that idea is insulting to immigrants. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of immigrants, like other born and bred Canadians, are law-abiding, hard-working, honest and proud. In fact, we accept more than a quarter of a million new permanent residents per year, of whom fewer than 1,000 are convicted of serious criminality and appeal to the IRB. That means that this bill will affect less than 1% of all permanent residents, 0.3% of them, to be precise.

Unfortunately, there are countless examples of foreign criminals who have been given sentences of under two years and have managed to parlay that delay into a long, drawn-out removal process that lasts for years, including some of the worst offenders imaginable.

Take the outrageous example of Cesar Guzman, a Peruvian national who was issued a deportation order after being convicted of sexually assaulting a senior citizen. This predator was only sentenced to 18 months in prison, so he was able to use his appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. He should, however, have been sent packing back to Peru as soon as he had finished serving his 18-month sentence, but because of the avenue of appeal that was open for him, he delayed his deportation for nearly four years.

Mr. Chairman, when Canadians read about cases like this they are understandably upset that we permit such delays to occur. Worst of all, many convicted foreign criminals have used the time they've bought appealing their deportation to reoffend, and sometimes to commit even more heinous crimes.

The fact that these foreign criminals can walk freely on our streets when they should have been sent home at the earliest opportunity disturbs the vast majority of Canadians. I can think of no better and more tragic case that typifies this problem than that of the murder of Toronto Police Constable Todd Baylis, who was killed by a foreign national who was delaying his deportation. There were operational mistakes on that file, but the fact that he was able to make an IAD appeal and delay his deportation contributed to the fact that Jamaican citizen Clinton Gayle was in Canada to kill police Constable Todd Baylis. We can never let that sort of thing happen again.

Under Bill C-43, if you commit a serious crime, you will get your day in court, but you won't get endless years in our courts.

There are other measures of the bill that seek to facilitate legitimate travel to Canada by people who do not pose any kind of a risk, which I think was skipped over in the debate on second reading. For example, previously, if low-risk travellers were accompanied by a family member who was inadmissible for grounds other than security or criminality, such as health, the entire family would be found inadmissible and would have to return to their home country. This bill proposes to improve the system so that only the inadmissible individual would be denied entry into Canada. All other accompanying family members would be allowed to enter. It doesn't penalize family members for one member's inadmissibility.

Yet another key change would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration new authority to deny entry—and I'll just focus on this—in exceptional cases to foreign nationals who mean harm to Canadians, such as individuals who encourage or incite hatred that could lead to violence. There has been some controversy on this provision. In the bill, we propose that the minister would have the ability to deny entry to foreign nationals based on public policy grounds. We drew that legislative proposal from our study of analogous provisions in peer democracies like Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, and many western European countries that have various forms of what we would call negative discretion.

Colleagues, let me explain the rationale. Quite frequently, members of Parliament and members of the public come to us and ask why we would admit to Canada a foreign national who has a long record of promoting hatred, and even inciting violence. To give you one example, last year the Council of Quebec Gays and Lesbians protested the effort of Mr. Hazma Tzortzis and Mr. Abdur Raheem Green, British nationals who were seeking to come to Canada to speak at a conference. These two individuals have a long record of vicious hatred, including calling for the death of gays and lesbians, Jews, violence against women, etc. Indeed, the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion calling upon me as the minister to deny entry into Canada of these individuals. This is one of many examples.

In fact, when I was a member of the opposition, I had proposed that we deny entry to Canada of Fred Phelps, a man who goes around promoting violent hatred against gays and lesbians. I also did so with respect to Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, a Saudi national who called for the destruction of all of the Jewish people.

Now, here's the problem we have, Mr. Chairman. If you believe the admission of such people to Canada is a problem—and that's a debatable question, for sure—and if you believe that such foreigners should not be permitted to spread potentially violent hatred in Canada, you have to recognize that the current law doesn't give us the tools to deny them entry, unless they are inadmissible on national security grounds. Let me be clear: promoting hatred against Jews is not a crime in Saudi Arabia. There are many countries in which crimes that exist in Canada do not exist in other countries, such as the promotion of violence or hatred against vulnerable groups.

This raises a very serious question as to whether or not Canadians and Parliament believe there should be some reasonable, discrete, limited, flexible tool that we can use in extraordinary cases where, for reasons like this, we want to keep out a foreign national who might otherwise be admissible. On what grounds you apply that power and in which cases and so forth are all legitimate questions for debate, which is why I'm tabling before the committee, Mr. Chairman, proposed guidelines for the exercise of this power of negative discretion.

I share now with committee members that this would focus on those who are involved in promoting terrorism, violence, or criminal activity, such as promoting or glorifying terrorist violence; promoting or glorifying a listed entity under a listed terrorist entity; counselling, encouraging, or inciting others to commit terrorist activity or terrorist violence; inciting hatred that is likely to lead to violence against a specific group; or promoting, counselling, encouraging, or inciting serious criminal activity. Additionally, this would give us the authority to deny admission to a foreign national of a country against which Canada has imposed sanctions under the United Nations Act or the Special Economic Measures Act, where that foreign national is a former or current senior official of the government of that country or of any entity owned or controlled by or acting on behalf of the government, or an associate or a relative of an official or person set out in paragraph 36(1)(a), or of a foreign national who is a politically exposed foreign person listed in regulations to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.

The latter section responds to calls from the opposition, from the Liberal and New Democratic parties, following the arrival of certain members of the family of Mr. Ben Ali, the former Tunisian dictator. Members of his family managed to get admission to Canada, and members of the public and opposition asked, “Why are you allowing the dictator's family to seek refuge in Canada?” The answer was that they're not otherwise technically inadmissible under sections 34, 35, and 36 of IRPA. These are the inadmissibility provisions, and we can't deny them admission if they don't have a criminal conviction or they're not members of a terrorist organization.

There may be cases where we want to bar, for example, senior regime members. We had sanctions on the Burmese regime. This would have given us the authority, for example, to deny members of the junta from Burma, at the time, from entering Canada.

We have sanctions now on the Iranian regime. We may want a broader power to deny admission to Canada of senior members of that regime. This would give us those tools.

As I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would invite the committee to give these issues very serious, sober-minded consideration. I would say to my friends in the opposition, who aspire to form government some day, that they may have to grapple with these problems, too.

I think all of us, as parliamentarians, need to very soberly reflect on what are the appropriate criteria, if any, to deny admission to foreign nationals in such exceptional circumstances. And how do we have a flexible tool that can respond to these situations?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention. There are many other provisions of the bill that I didn't get into—some of which are technical, but all of which are important—and I and my officials stand ready to respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 54, on Wednesday, October 24, 2012. This meeting is televised. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, we are studying Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I've been advised that a concurrence motion has been introduced in the House, so we may have a vote sometime this afternoon.

Mr. Lamoureux.

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Angus Grant]

Okay.

Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting me today. I'm honoured to take part in the conversation you are having, which is an important one.

In the context of your discussion on security in Canada's immigration system, I want to address the specific issue of how security threats are dealt with in the immigration section, specifically under section 34 of the IRPA.

I am a lawyer, as the chair mentioned, and while I still have a small practice, I'm devoting my time right now mostly to doctoral studies on precisely this topic, on the application of security provisions both in Canada and in other jurisdictions. I've recently published a paper on the topic in the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal.

I want to begin by telling a story, which perhaps many members of the committee have heard, about Habtom Kibraeb, an individual in Halifax, who on a winter day in February 2010 walked to a car and committed suicide. It was a tragic event. It saddened many people in the Halifax community.

What I want to talk about with respect to Mr. Kibraeb is that prior to coming to Canad,a he had taken part in the independence movement of the Eritrean people in their efforts to create their own country and separate from the highly oppressive regime in Ethiopia.

The efforts he took part in were universally recognized as being for human rights and a democratic purpose. In fact, Canada was one of the first countries to recognize the legitimacy of the Eritrean liberation movement, and we opened up an embassy in the new Eritrean state very shortly after it was created.

There was no talk at the time the independence movement was being carried out about violations of human rights. In fact, it was the opposite. The struggle was intended to create a more positive human rights situation for the Eritrean people.

Fast forward 20 years, and Mr. Kibraeb was in grave danger in his home country, so he came to Canada. After he did, he was found by Canadian immigration authorities to be a terrorist threat. He was found, under section 34, to be inadmissible to Canada.

This was not a question of danger to Canada and not a question of the security of our borders, and it should not be portrayed as such. Nevertheless, he was captured under the rubric of section 34, which is about security. No one ever alleged that he was a danger to Canadians or Canada; it was all about the activities he had taken part in and the movement he had supported, as I said, some 20 years earlier.

Please don't take what I am saying to suggest that Canadian immigration authorities or officials are responsible for the tragic death of Mr. Kibraeb. What I want to talk about today, and what the story really illustrates, is that when immigration security decisions are made in a way that captures the wrong people, it ruins their lives. This happened with Mr. Kibraeb, but I've seen it personally happen to many individuals. This is what I want to talk about today.

The process prevents people who otherwise can't return to their country—and everybody recognizes this because of the threat they face in their country—from working in Canada. It forces them to go on social assistance. It cuts them off from any health care benefits they may have had. Most importantly, it forces them to live in constant fear that they are going to be returned to a country where they know they will be killed. It forces them to face the prospect that they will be wrenched from their family members, many of whom are here with them and not subject to the inadmissibility proceedings. For all family members involved, this is obviously a wrenching situation.

It's simply an incontrovertible fact that the inadmissibility provisions under section 34 capture a wide swath of individuals beyond those who may pose a security threat to Canada. The provisions of section 34 are clear. The plain wording captures any member of the African National Congress. In fact, we have seen that, and efforts are being made to obtain a waiver for ANC members. Also, because of the plain wording of the provision, any member of the U.S. armed forces is categorically caught.

Members should know the wording of section 34, but I'll repeat it. It is that anyone who has engaged in or instigated “the subversion by force of any government” is categorically inadmissible to Canada.

What happens in these situations? Discretionary decisions are made to let in some people and not let in others, to kick out some people and not kick out others.

I find this process to be fascinating and troubling because of the way it plays out very frequently.

The fact of the matter is that the way the inadmissibility provision under section 34 has been interpreted, there is no temporal dimension to it. It applies to anyone who has been affiliated with an organization that has sought to subvert a government, whether that government was a repressive one or a democratic one. For example, someone who today joined a party or an organization which a hundred years ago sought to subvert another government would nevertheless, in the plain wording of the act, be inadmissible.

As I said, the crux is that these fundamental decisions that are being made about the security of our country and the lives of individuals who may have a risk to their lives back home are discretionary in nature.

I want to propose three things that this committee should take into account in looking at these factors and discretionary decisions.

First of all, I think it is absolutely incumbent on this committee to propose to Parliament that broad waivers are afforded to the classes of individuals, such as the African National Congress, we know pose no threat to the Canadian public but who may have participated in events that put them on the wrong side of section 34.

This has been done in the United States. The United States has a waiver for individuals who belong to organizations that are not terrorist organizations and do not pose a threat to the United States, but who, in the same way in the United States, have run afoul of the terrorism legislation in immigration law.

Secretary Napolitano in August issued a broad waiver of this variety, so that anyone who was a member of one of these non-concerning organizations does not have to worry about being sent back to persecution and potential torture because of their involvement in one of these organizations.

Second, we need to do a better job of training individuals who make these discretionary decisions about what poses a threat to Canadian national security and what doesn't. We need to do a better job of training them as to the complexities that arise when people come to Canada from conflict situations all over the world.

It's very easy to cast the net broadly, but it's much more difficult and much more important to bring that net in, in a way that doesn't capture people who all of us would agree do not pose a threat to Canada. This could be done in part through this broad waiver scenario and in part through other specific training about what kinds of decisions should be made and who is and who is not a threat. That could be improved on, and I could go into more detail on that.

Finally, the waiver provision under subsection 34(2) would be changed somewhat under Bill C-43. I won't tread on Bill C-43 territory, but the provision remains in the new legislation, albeit somewhat changed.

I am firmly of the view that this decision should not be made by the minister. It's currently, and always has been, in the minister's hands, but I would urge the committee to consider a suggestion to change the process. I would argue that no minister, Conservative or Liberal, has probably ever enjoyed or done a particularly good job of making these waiver decisions. They are inherently difficult for a politician to make. They have to worry about the prospect of providing a waiver to someone who has been caught in the terrorism legislation.

Also, the backlog of decisions under subsection 34(2) is simply an abomination. The waiting times are up to 10 years for people whose lives are in limbo. There is a lot of social science evidence to suggest that the waiting time that people face on immigration decisions can amount to a larger torture than people experienced in their home countries. To have to wait 10 years for these decisions, to be perfectly frank, is abhorrent.

I'll stop my comments there. I look forward to a larger conversation about these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Try to stay away from Bill C-43, because we will be getting that in another hearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The government is itching to talk about that. We will be holding hearings on Bill C-43, which the House of Commons is going to vote on tomorrow. This committee will be studying that bill.

It does involve security, but I don't think we should hear that specific topic yet. You can come another time and make a presentation then.

[Debbie Douglas]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dykstra, when we received the invitation we looked very carefully at the scope of the study, and we made sure that detention and deportation would fit within the scope of the study. That is why we have chosen to speak to these two issues this afternoon.

In terms of the children, it has been well documented that the incarceration of anyone, but particularly children, has a detrimental effect. The front line workers in OCASI's member agencies often speak to this.

Many of those in detention are coming from traumatizing situations, and being detained retraumatizes them. We believe that the trauma done to children is deeply troubling, and is something that will have long-term effects.

While statistics show that the majority of those who are detained are let go within about 20 days, a significant number of people are detained for much longer. The longer they are held, the worse they are affected, and the greater difficulty they have in adjusting to life outside of detention.

Detention is an expensive proposition for the government, in terms of the damage it does to human beings and the long-term health and social costs, but also in terms of economic costs, such as the costs of building and maintaining detention facilities around the country. We anticipate that with the implementation of Bill C-31 we will see those numbers increasing.

I've said all of this because I want to talk about alternatives to detention.

I, too, attended the bilateral meeting that was held a couple of weeks ago, which was co-hosted by the Canadian branch of UNHCR as well as the U.S. branch of UNHCR. Both Citizenship and Immigration and CBSA presented, along with their colleagues from Australia, the U.S., and Sweden. What was surprising to those who were representing Canada there is that we seem to be way behind in terms of any formal program that looks at alternatives to detention.

You heard from the previous witness that Australia in particular has programs where they've built in conditions that address issues of security. We're not talking about looking at alternatives to detention that would allow, for example, war criminals to get out of detention, but about paying particular attention to those who are at low risk, those who are vulnerable, for example, pregnant woman or people in the deportation stream who are ready to go home and have no need to be in detention.

Here in Canada the only program we are able to point to as an example is the Toronto bail program. It's certainly something we can build on. Australia works very closely with the Red Cross, but also with other civil society organizations and NGOs. They have set up quite extensive and effective programs where those who do not belong in detention and are going through the process, either for ID purposes or deportation purposes, are able to live in the community until such time as they are removed from the country. We believe—and they have testified to the fact—that this is certainly more humane and cost-effective. Compliance is in the 90th percentile.

It is certainly something I'm strongly recommending. The time has come for us as a country to look at a national formal alternative to detention program. I would love to have a conversation about that when I'm finished.

Before my time is up, I also want to talk about the second point, which is the impact of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. My concerns are based on two factors. First—

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I am simply coming back to the topic mentioned by our witness, and I would like clarification about the specific themes he shared with the committee. I'm not really referring to Bill C-43.

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

I know that Bill C-43 will be coming fairly quickly, but I just want to be clear that this meeting is related to the study on securing our country.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Speaker, in the brief time I have I cannot go over chapter and verse of the bill, but I want to focus on a couple of sections and aspects of the bill.

Bill C-43 concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. It relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, changes what constitutes serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility, increases the penalty for misrepresentation and clarifies that entering with the assistance of organized criminal activity does not on its own lead to inadmissibility.

In case there is any confusion, New Democrats will support this legislation getting to committee. I want to quote the member for Newton—North Delta who, as the NDP immigration critic, has done a tremendous amount of work on this file. In her speech on September 24, she indicated that she wanted to make clear the following:

—that as New Democrats we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing of serious criminals who are not citizens.

All Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent, crimes in our communities. Newcomers in our communities, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding and follow the rules, would be among the first to agree with this sentiment.

However, she went on to say that we do have some serious concerns about the bill being proposed. One of the concerns she outlined was that it again concentrates powers with the minister. Part of the concern that the member raised was the fact that our immigration system does not need to be more politicized than it already is. Whenever we start seeing increased concentration of powers in the minister's hands, it removes parliamentary oversight from some of those activities and removes it from the department itself, which often operates in a more arm's-length way.

One of the other items she raised is that:

Another troubling feature for us in the bill is that the bill relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, taking into account the interests of children affected. In our view, ignoring the interests of children is not something the minister should be relieved of.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of war resisters. War resisters at the time were not permanent residents, but it has been an issue that has come before the House a number of times, including a motion that supported allowing war resisters to remain in this country. We recently had the case of the war resister Kimberly Rivera, who asked the government to grant permanent residence status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The NDP's British Columbia caucus wrote a letter to the minister indicating that we had joined prominent Canadians and international advocates, including Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in calling on the minister to allow Ms. Rivera to stay in Canada with her family. The letter mentioned the fact that Ms. Rivera had children while she was living here and that there were many other factors to consider.

I want to mention another war resister who, unfortunately, was deported from my riding a couple of years ago. It was a young man named Cliff Cornell who had been living on Gabriola. He was a quiet young man. He had joined the forces in the United States. He grew up in a mountain home in Arkansas and in 2002 after leaving high school and with few employment prospects he had accepted a $5,000 signing bonus for a career in the U.S. Army. A few months later the U.S. went to war against Iraq. He deserted and came to Canada in 2005 to avoid combat. It was a case of a young man who grew up in very poor circumstances and ended up perhaps not really understanding what he was getting into. He ended up in Canada. He was well liked and well supported by the community on Gabriola. He found a job there. He was a responsible citizen and yet ended up being deported.

With regard to Bill C-43, there was a recent article in the Toronto Star entitled, “Bill could exile thousands of permanent residents for minor crimes”. The article indicates that under the proposed new law, thousands of permanent residents could lose their status and be deported for minor convictions, from shoplifting to traffic and drug offences, according to Canada’s top immigration lawyers.

These are young children brought to Canada at a young age as permanent residents, raised and schooled in Canada, but who never took out citizenship.

It goes on in the article to say that the federal government has always had the authority to strip landed immigrant status from a permanent resident convicted of a serious crime, but Bill C-43 would allow appeals only for those sentenced to less than six months in jail, down from the current threshold of two years.

As our immigration critic pointed out, with some of the changes in the Conservatives' crime legislation with the mandatory minimums, we now see people getting sentenced for some minor crime to more than six months, so they would not be eligible for any kind of process under this new legislation.

The article also talked about the fact that people may have misrepresented themselves when they applied for immigration. It points out that there could be honest omissions on a person's employment history, or incorrect dates of certain events written down in an immigration application could come back to haunt the immigrant years later.

It is also indicated in here that it is very likely that this could face a court challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given previous Supreme Court of Canada decisions directing that authorities must consider humanitarian risk factors before deporting a person.

I want to reiterate the fact that New Democrats are in support of getting the bill to committee, but we are calling on the government to consider looking at some amendments that could actually make this a better bill. I will end on that note.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This legislation includes many provisions relating to immigration. Some are valid and interesting, while others seem less appropriate.

In short, the bill grants more power to the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. It removes the minister's responsibility to review humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It 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. The bill also amends the definition of “serious criminality” to restrict access to the appeal process following an inadmissibility ruling. It increases the penalty for false representation and, finally, it clarifies the fact that entering the country by resorting to criminal activities does not automatically lead to inadmissibility.

I would like to begin by sharing something with hon. members. I am always a bit uncomfortable when we talk about immigration, and that is for a very simple reason: I am not myself an immigrant. I live in the country in which I was born. I never have to question myself. I live in my home country, with my relatives and with my language. My cultural references are the same as those of the majority around me. I never had to consider emigration as an option. If I left to live elsewhere, it would only be for a while. It would not be emigration but, rather, an extended stay.

I know what I am talking about, because I lived abroad. I once was the one who had to adapt. I had to work hard to learn how to function in a foreign language that I did not fully master. I developed new social skills that I was not familiar with. In Russia, I changed. I developed a bit of Russian in me. Thanks to this subtle change, by the time I left Moscow, I had acquired a Slavic heritage that will always stay with me. Mores vary from one country to another.

At the same time, because I was forced to adapt to this otherness, I was becoming increasingly more Quebecker and Canadian. I understood more clearly what it meant to be born in Canada. I could not but realize that the relationship I had with my country was one of trust. I knew that Canada would always be there for me.That trust generated a feeling of pride. I am convinced that many here know what I am talking about.

If I mention my stay in Russia, it is because I want to make us think. During the debate on Bill C-43, we should think about our relationship with the rest of the world. We have been debating the reform of the immigration system since last fall. I am referring to Bill C-4 and Bill C-31. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, because it gives me a chance to level a criticism at the government. Not only am I not pleased with the tone used by the government when it talks about immigration and refugees, but I am even more upset by the tone and the comments of some members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I do not want to preach to anyone, but, for me, it is important to distance myself from the unenlightened remarks we sometimes hear. Pride in one's own country should not give rise to disdain for another's. Nor should it necessarily give rise to an undue fear of foreigners. That is silly and simplistic.

I remain convinced that the government's interest in ethnic communities that have settled in Canada is purely mercenary. The government is not comfortable with immigration and even less so with refugees. My impression is that they see jihadists and smugglers everywhere. I am not accusing them of that; it is just the impression I get. I am sorry.

That said, of the three government bills to reform the immigration system, Bill C-43 is the least contentious. It deals with the faster removal of dangerous criminals.

Who could be opposed to that, really? Not the Canadian public, not the NDP. Canada is not a haven for failed tyrants, multimillionaire dictators and petty mafiosi of every description.

In support of this bill, the government wants to show us lists of expert witnesses who agree that dangerous criminals should not be allowed into the country. Really? What a revelation.

I can assure the government that no one, anywhere, wants people who are guilty of serious crimes to be walking free among us and abusing our hospitality.

But I wonder what the government plans to do in order to really crack down on these criminals and to protect Canadians. That is the burning question because the answer is turning out to be a little disappointing.

Basically, Bill C-43 gives more discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. The minister will be the one to decide who can stay and who must leave right away. So he will become a kind of James Bond, working 28-hour days to protect Canadians from evil, twisted foreigners and their illicit master plans.

Bill C-43, like Bill C-4, gives the minister more arbitrary powers. I am well aware that we have to crack down on criminals who would come here and put our peaceful communities at risk. No one would ever say otherwise; but why must it be the minister who decides?

The answer is simple. It is so the minister can cut off the appeals launched by those charged with crimes. The minister could then decide to kick out anyone filing an appeal, or, let us come right out and say it, everyone filing an appeal.

All this will help us save time and money and will send the problem far, far away to other less sympathetic shores. When you get rid of a problem, have you not solved it?

With this bill, the government says it is attacking a specific, urgent problem by creating a legal limbo and opening the door to arbitrary measures. This is worrying. How far will the minister's authority go? Where will the limits to these new powers be set?

I just want to say to the government and to the minister that granting discretionary authority is not the answer to every problem. The minister cannot micromanage everything by himself in his office as soon as an exceptional case turns up. That is not a system, that is a despot.

Another very important detail is that they want to prevent all family members of a convicted criminal from visiting Canada. They have been careful to cast a wide net. The idea behind this is that the members of a Mafia family, or some kind of gang or the families of overthrown dictators will not be able to come to Canada and will not be able to bring their problems here. It is clearly a desirable goal, in and of itself. However, there are always exceptional cases, even though they are rare, and the minister's discretionary powers will not be intermittent. They will be enshrined in legislation and create a legal limbo that will last forever.

Furthermore, this is a huge undertaking. All family members of criminals sentenced here or abroad will have to be identified, and the road to Canada barred for them. Since the departmental cuts were made, this difficult task will have to be carried out quickly and well with fewer human resources.

The government wants to get rid of the backlog in the immigration system by creating massive research projects for immigration office employees. I imagine there is no other solution.

What I am saying is that the substance is good, but the form seems deficient. The government wants to protect Canadians and better manage our immigration system. The New Democratic Party recognizes that immigration is a priceless resource for Canada and wants to ensure that our system is effective, professional, swift and reliable.

The NDP also recognizes that action must indeed be taken to prevent the abuse of our system. The government is trying to resolve the issue, but it is going about it the wrong way. We think this is a worthwhile bill and that it must be studied in committee. We have already said that Bill C-43 has many admirable elements that deserve our support. In particular, the NDP is pleased that the bill exonerates the victims of human smugglers and that their victim status is guaranteed. Apparently, the government has learned not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism when he introduced his bill. I find it somewhat disorienting to hear him use the word “foreigner” to describe people who have not officially obtained their Canadian citizenship even though they are permanent residents.

All of us, without exception, are the descendants of immigrants. I am getting tired of seeing the Conservatives dismantle what has taken decades to build: Canada's reputation as a compassionate, equitable and fair country. A country that stands up for itself, that knows how to say yes, but also knows how to say no and how to show someone the door when it is necessary, as is the case with serious criminals. I do not want to hear that such and such a budget has tripled; frankly, in a department the size of Immigration, money is not everything. We are not dealing with columns of numbers. We are dealing with human beings who have often been more unlucky than we have. I would appreciate it if the government would stop hiding behind its accounting ledgers.

In conclusion, I am aware that the Conservative government has had to tackle immigration reform but is not terribly interested in it. And with good reason. As soon as the word “immigration” is spoken on the other side of the House, the word “economic” follows in the next sentence. They do not understand that some departments have obligations to the public, and are not just companies that must make a profit. A country is not run the same way as a business. But I am wasting my breath trying to tell them so.

Some institutions exist for reasons that are not strictly economic. Immigration is an inevitable global phenomenon and it will increase in the years to come. Canada would be well-advised to have its immigration system structured by people who see beyond simple economic interests.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, also known as the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

Before I speak about this bill specifically, I would like to briefly tell you about my constituency, LaSalle—Émard. LaSalle actually is celebrating its centenary this year. It was founded by a nobleman, René-Robert Cavelier de La Salle, who settled there more than 100 years ago. The name LaSalle comes from the name of this Frenchman who arrived more than 300 years ago. The French settled there, then the English. In fact, my constituency has been shaped by those French and English settlers, who worked together to build the community.

For decades, LaSalle—Émard has welcomed large numbers of newcomers, new Canadians. We have an Italian community that is one of the largest on the island of Montreal. Immigrants have become well established. We also have a large Chinese community and a large southeast Asian community, people from India, Pakistan and other countries in the region. We also are fortunate to have welcomed many people from North Africa and even from other parts of Africa.

LaSalle—Émard really is very representative of a number of communities in Canada as a welcoming place, a place where communities share their daily lives. I must tell you that I am very proud to represent the constituency, because it gives me the opportunity to meet people from every background: Quebeckers, English-speakers, British people with Scottish and Anglo-Saxon roots, and also people from communities all around the world.

As the member of Parliament, I have also put together a team to welcome and provide services to Canadians. I have come to realize that those services involve immigration to a great extent. Our immigration system has been stretched to the limit for years by the lack of resources, the lack of funding, the closure of embassies and places where people can submit visa or citizenship applications, and so on.

And what is happening here too, right inside the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? Cuts once more. There is not enough staff and not enough funding to meet the demand. So what is happening? People are coming to their member of Parliament's office to get information and answers to their legitimate questions and requests.

Every week, we meet with people to talk about their situations. Sometimes it is something quite simple. There is a wedding in the family and the people want their relatives to attend the ceremony, but the visa is denied. All the information has been provided. All the documents have been sent, but for some reason or another—a totally legitimate reason—the visa is denied.

However, other people come to talk about situations that are more complicated. They are expecting a loved one to join them, or they are refugees who have been issued a deportation notice. That is what is happening at our riding offices. It is always an immensely human story that is told in our office. As Canadians, we cannot even begin to imagine the situations that some people are in. We live here, in Canada, freely and comfortably. We have all our papers. We can get a passport, our driver's licence, and our health card without too much difficulty. But there are people who leave behind unimaginable situations, such as famine. There are people who have lived in refugee camps, where it is hard to imagine how they would get their documents, a licence or anything. Those are the stories and events that sometimes—far too often lately—land in our offices.

What we have before the House is a bill that seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act whose short title is the “Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act”, because it is about foreigners.

I want to reiterate this: the NDP recognizes the need to have an efficient legal system in order to deport serious criminals who are not citizens. The NDP believes that it is possible to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system without violating people's rights. This is the first thing that I want to say about Bill C-43.

However, this is Parliament. There are laws. The questions that we should be asking when we are in government are as follows. On what basis is this bill being introduced? Is this bill necessary? Does the Criminal Code contain provisions to prevent this situation? These are the questions that I am asking myself and that a government should ask itself before introducing a bill. There are other questions. Does this bill meet an urgent, pressing need or respond to a disastrous situation that is currently affecting our system? That is a question that should be asked. Does this bill fill a gap? That is the question that I am asking because a bill should be justified and justifiable.

There is one other thing that I would like to point out. As my colleagues already noted, this government has a strong tendency to want to push the judiciary into the political arena. In other words, it will transfer powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I explained the situation in my riding office. At some point, will it not just slow down the system and, once again, get into subjective territory to transfer such power to a single person outside the judiciary? The power would be concentrated in the hands of one individual.

I raise all these questions about the bill.

I am happy to answer any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today at second reading to speak to Bill C-43.

It is described as an act for the faster removal of foreign criminals. If we were debating the title of the act, I really do not think there would be anything to debate. I cannot imagine any Canadian who does not think that a foreigner who is a dangerous criminal should be removed from Canada.

As has happened lately with a number of pieces of legislation brought before the House since I have been a member, I have been surprised how far the titles have morphed from the kinds of titles of legislation I once studied at law school. It used to be that we would open a statute and we found that, not only was the book dusty, the title of the legislation was just a blanket description of what was at stake: an immigration and refugee statute or a law to deal with the Fisheries Act.

Now we have titles that seem to, and probably do, come out of focus group testing for legislative titles that would be zingers in future election campaigns. As someone who studied statutes, I find this a dismaying trend. I realized the other day while watching a U.S. program on HBO called The Newsroom that this was invented by the Republicans south of the border. I do not watch enough U.S. TV to have known that if I had not been watching The Newsroom.

Back to the topic, this piece of legislation, which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, definitely has merit if what it is about is getting rid of dangerous foreign criminals who have no right to be in Canada.

I assert that what we have here is always going to be a question of balance. We do not want dangerous foreign criminals with no right to stay in Canada to be here, threatening Canadians who have every right to be here. However, we also recognize that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, permanent residents and citizens of Canada have charter rights. The question then is whether we have the right balance. Are we protecting permanent residents who are not a threat to our society or are we sweeping them up in the vast and sweeping discretion of the minister?

This could do serious injustice to people who are important parts of Canadian society, who contribute in positive ways and who we would not want to be caught up in a sweep that did not take account of individual rights, individual situations, humanity, compassion, holding families together and other aspects that have always been part of the consideration before deportation takes place.

When we ask if the balance is right in the legislation, I turn to some of the recent comments by members of the Canadian bar. Toronto lawyer Mendel Green is quoted in this story from the Toronto Sun as saying:

I am concerned about the monumental affect this will have on the immigrant community if it becomes law.... This will be a life sentence for many people.

Lawyer Joel Sandaluk, at the same press conference, representing the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, said:

This will destroy families who've been here for a long time.... It will create more criminals if parents or other family members are removed from Canada.

I have further quotes from other lawyers. Lawyer Guidy Mamann also said this about the potential residents who could be swept up and deported with no chance of appeal and without any exercise of individual discretion. He said:

These are young children brought to Canada at a young age as permanent residents, raised and schooled in Canada...[but] never took out citizenship.... It is unconscionable that a country like Canada, which has always allowed for second chances, to now embark on a new ‘one strike you’re out’ approach.

Last, I will cite lawyer Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, who said that the bill is drafted in such a way that it could easily sweep up people guilty of minor offences and have them deported. He said:

We are not talking about serial killers, murderers or bank robbers.

Let us take a look at what kind of people could be swept up by the bill and what kinds of crimes people would have to commit for there to be no right of appeal and the person would just be sent out of the country. This can be described as crimes for which people are convicted for a sentence of six months or more.

The current law deals with crimes where sentences are two years or more. To bring it down to six months or more for a crime for which the ultimate sentence could be as much as ten years in jail would bring in a series of crimes that do not threaten the security or at least the safety of Canadians. In other words, it would take in a number of crimes that do not involve any threat of violence. If someone is found guilty of a crime and sent to jail for six months or more, nowhere does this new legislation require that the crime be a crime of violence or something that threatens the security of Canada.

The kinds of crimes listed that I found might fit this definition for which someone who is a permanent resident could get a six month sentence but a ten year maximum would include the deportation for possession of a stolen or forged credit card and the use of that credit card knowing it had been cancelled, the unauthorized use of a computer or forgery, and a host of other offences that carry ten year maximums. In that case, we are talking about no discretion, no appeal.

What could easily happen is that if any one member of a family, a parent or a younger member, children born in Canada, relatives participating in Canadian society or any one part of the fabric of a Canadian family, is found guilty of something that is not in any way a crime of violence but receives a sentence of up to six months with a maximum of ten years, that individual is gone. The individual would have no chance to plead his or her case.

I will quote one other lawyer on this matter who, I am proud to say, is the current nominated candidate for the Green Party in Victoria in a byelection. His name is Donald Galloway. He is a founder of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and is also a professor of refugee and immigration law at the University of Victoria. In looking at this, he suggested that there was an inherent legal balance built into section 34 of the current act so that the courts have accepted broadly defined prescribed grounds of inadmissibility that are found in section 34(1) based on the assumption that these same sweeping inadmissibilities are balanced by the provisions in section 34(2).

If Bill C-43 were enacted, it would fundamentally destabilize the legal balance by removing the layer of individualized, personalized, case-by-case review guided by, in some cases, humanitarian concerns and compassion that acted as a safeguard against the breadth of prescribed grounds for inadmissibility found in section 34(1). Beyond issues of compassion and fairness, this ill-conceived change would force the courts, as they have already indicated, into a position where they will need to intervene and fix the act to provide a reinterpretation to ensure that the act remains constitutional, otherwise it will violate the charter.

I will now turn my attention to another section of the act that I find particularly egregious and which does not deal with criminals and does not deal with people already in Canada.

If the minister, under the new clause 8, which would change section 22 of the current act, is dealing with a foreign national who has applied to become a temporary resident of Canada, the minister would have unfettered discretion to make a decision to refuse that person the right to be a permanent resident of Canada with no objective criteria that can be measured. This is very unusual. The clause states that section 22.1(1), which can be found under clause 8 in the proposed Bill C-43, allows the minister, “on the Minister’s own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”. This banishment can last for up to three years.

Going back to my time in law school doing legal drafting and statute interpretation, we cannot find anything that gives us more freewheeling power to make up our mind which ever way we want than the language “Minister is of the opinion”. No court will be able to step in and say that it does not like the way the minister has exercised his or her discretion. I am using his or her as this will apply for all time. I am not just thinking of the minister at the moment. This would be a permanent change to our legislation and a dangerous one. The legislation says “the Minister is of the opinion”, and then what? What is the minister of the opinion of? The Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations. We could not come up with something that gives more freewheeling discretion, not bound by anything in particular. What kind of public policy considerations? Maybe the public policy considerations could be that we have too many of a certain kind of person in a town. Who knows? It is without objective criteria.

I hope that when this legislation goes to committee and is studied in committee we can rebalance the balance that must be there.

I stand here as leader of the Green Party not in favour of keeping dangerous foreign criminals in Canada but in keeping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. I cannot begin to count the number of characterizations she has used to talk about how we on this side feel about immigrants. We are not talking about stigmatizing immigrants as criminals. That is complete hogwash.

She talked about not politicizing the process. I will ask her a question about people who are non-political but have an opinion on the process, and they are professional opinions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence are among the many organizations that support Bill C-43.

Does the member and her party support the views of these organizations on this legislation, or would they rather politicize the process and not listen to professionals?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, which we are debating, is a bill amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

First, I would like to say that the New Democrats acknowledge that the judicial process must be effective and flexible when it comes to removing dangerous criminals who are not Canadian citizens.

Canadians want strict measures to be taken against non-citizens who commit serious and often violent offences in our communities. Newcomers, most of whom are law-abiding, would be the first to accept this approach.

What I really like about this bill is the clause that will ensure that entering Canada because of organized criminal activity is not in itself enough for a person to be deemed inadmissible for permanent residency and Canadian citizenship, which is great news for victims of trafficking rings who are anything but criminals.

On the other hand, I find some things in this bill quite disturbing. The first one is the minister’s discretionary power to decide whether or not some people represent a threat to national security and the national interest. In fact, this bill increases the arbitrary powers given to the minister. For example, Bill C-43 gives the minister vast powers that enable him to prevent a foreign national from entering or leaving the country, or declare someone inadmissible based on public policy considerations we think are ambiguous.

We must strengthen the independence of the judicial system, not give the minister the ability to decide who enters and leaves Canada. The last thing our immigration system needs is to be even more politicized.

Canada has an efficient and independent system to determine the admissibility of people into the country. There is no point in replacing it with the whims of a minister. The minister must not be able to prevent people entering the country just because they disagree with the government. It is ridiculous to think that giving the minister more power will solve anything.

Another problem comes from the fact that the provisions of Bill C-43 will apply to people who have been found guilty of serious crimes abroad, as well as in Canada. Canada has one of the world’s best justice systems. Other countries are not so lucky. In many countries, merely belonging to an opposition party may lead to a conviction on serious criminal charges. There is no better illustration of the importance of the rule of law.

We must ensure that Canada remains a country that welcomes and offers hope to people who are fleeing persecution in other lands.

That said, I do think it reasonable to ensure that people guilty of sexual assault or robbery with violence are not running loose on our streets.

In view of the change in the definition of “serious criminality”, the change from the criterion of a two-year sentence to a six-month sentence, and since crimes committed abroad would be considered, the professionals who work with immigrants, refugees and the diasporas have also expressed their concerns that this legislation may unjustly punish young people and the mentally ill.

Therefore, the impact of this provision must be carefully studied to ensure that the measures truly achieve their goal, to prevent dangerous people from entering Canada.

Another thing that disturbs me in this bill—and in the government’s policy in general—is the image of immigrants they have created. The bills are trumpeted as if immigrants were a great threat to the country or as if all immigrants were potential criminals, when almost all immigrants to Canada are people who are seeking a better life and a better future and who, like all other Canadians, want to live in a safe environment.

I am an immigrant. I chose Quebec and Canada to live and raise my family, and I am very happy to be involved in my community in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I made this particular choice because I wanted a safe environment for my family, and I have found it here.

Immigrating is not easy, particularly if you are not coming to join family members who are already here. You have to start from zero. You have to find a place to live, and furnish it. You have to find a school for your children. You have to get your diplomas recognized, and in my case that was a nightmare. Finding a job is also a major challenge. A 2010 study shows that the unemployment rate is four times higher among immigrants with a university diploma than among university graduates born in Canada.

The last thing immigrants need is to be stigmatized and have a “potential criminal” aura, which would make it even more difficult for them to integrate and contribute to society in Quebec and Canada. The government has got to abandon the rhetoric that puts all immigrants in the same basket. People in my riding are already telling me disturbing stories about how they are treated and the perception others may have of them, simply because they have come from somewhere else.

That said, we must not ignore the problems that exist. We simply have to be sure our response is measured. As they say where I come from, you do not use a hammer, or a cannon, to kill a mosquito.

I know we can stop non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal process without denying their rights. We, and the government, have to focus on improving the immigration system so it is faster and fairer for the large majority of people who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.

I would point out again that the very large majority of people who come to Canada are not criminals. They are people who hope to contribute to society and build a better world. More often than not, they are even professionals and highly educated people.

In closing, I want to say that the question of health care for refugees is still an issue and is still important. The government probably wants us to forget the cuts it has made to that program. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with the College of Family Physicians of Canada, who asked me to keep up the fight for health care for refugees. I want to remind the government that we in the NDP are not forgetting this.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-43, which proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As my colleagues before me indicated, we will support the bill at second reading, but this support is far from being a blank cheque. Bill C-43 has a number of significant shortcomings that will need to be addressed in committee. On this side of the House, we want to co-operate with the government to make Bill C-43 a fairer and more balanced bill.

Canadians expect us to be capable of reaching compromises. Compromises are at the core of a democratic system such as Canada's. Refusing to compromise is tantamount to failing to fulfill one's democratic obligations. Since the last election, our colleagues opposite have too often shown themselves to be closed off to dialogue and compromise. This is very regrettable. I sincerely hope that that will change.

Canadians want us to impose tough penalties on non-Canadians who commit serious crimes in Canada. I am certain that law-abiding newcomers to Canada—and it is important to say that they are almost all law-abiding—share our opinion.

What people in this country are asking for is a guarantee that our judicial system is efficient and sufficiently flexible when it comes time to return criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship to their countries of origin. Canadians especially want the government to invest more energy in ensuring that applications by newcomers are processed more quickly and more efficiently. The Conservatives should go to greater lengths to ensure, for example, that these people can be reunited with members of their family as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, I have several reservations concerning the content of this bill. For example, I have trouble understanding the reasons for the new discretionary powers being given to the minister. If Bill C-43 were to come into force tomorrow morning, the minister would have the power to declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident if he considers that it is justified by public policy considerations. However, one of the problems with this proposal is that the concept of public policy considerations is not defined. This opens the door to very different interpretations of what may constitute public policy considerations. This must be addressed.

I also have a lot of trouble understanding the presence of a clause that relieves the minister of his responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances associated with the application of a foreign national deemed inadmissible. I would like someone to explain the reason for this measure to me. I do not understand why humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not be taken to consideration in a review. Is that really the Canada that we want?

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that it severely limits access to the appeals process. We all agree that our appeal system must not be exploited in order to deliberately delay the removal of a non-resident to his country of origin, but the measures contained in Bill C-43 should not limit human rights.

The Conservatives have promoted their bill by speaking almost exclusively about the fact that it will speed up the deportation of dangerous offenders. However, Bill C-43 casts a far wider net than that. Among other things, it redefines serious crimes.

Under the present system, an individual who has committed a crime punishable by two years or more has no access to the appeal process. Bill C-43 wants to lower the bar to crimes punishable by six months or more. As a result, a lot more people will be denied the opportunity to appeal a decision made in their case.

Let us be clear. I am not fundamentally opposed to tightening the definition of “serious criminality”.

One benefit would be to take in crimes like sexual assault and robbery, which in itself is a good thing. However, I think we have to be vigilant and make sure the new definition does not lead to poorly thought out decisions.

One thing I am concerned about is what effects the new system of minimum sentences provided in Bill C-10 might have on decisions to be made in removal cases.

Some crimes covered by that new system are non-violent crimes. So we have to be careful when it comes to limiting access to the appeal process. The restriction in the legislation must not be extended too far by Bill C-43. Yes, we have to stop non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. But we also have to be sure that we take an intelligent approach to all of this. We really have to preserve a balance. Most importantly, we have to be able to guarantee that the right decision will be made in each removal case.

The appeal mechanism is a useful tool for that purpose. Why would we take it away? We will have to pay particular attention to this issue once it gets to committee.

So far, we have heard the Conservatives telling us over and over that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit serious crimes. I would hope so, but honestly, in real life, things are not necessarily black and white. We all know that reality is more complex than that. Bill C-43 should be constructed in a way that reflects that complexity.

For example, what do we do with offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who know nothing about the country they are to be deported to? Some organizations have raised concerns on this point, but that is not a factor to be considered under Bill C-43.

In the NDP, we want to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. However, we do not want the mechanisms that make it possible for our system to deal with extraordinary circumstances in a flexible manner to be eliminated.

Like the government, we want our judicial system to be effective and to make it possible for non-citizens who have committed serious crimes to be removed as soon as possible, but we do not want to have botched, unbalanced processes that do not take special situations into account. Wanting to expedite the removal of foreign criminals is a laudable objective in itself, but we have to make sure the process leading to removal does not violate the person’s rights. In our society, we have a duty to make decisions that are just and that recognize everyone’s rights.

Bill C-43 is a bill on which we can and must build. As I said earlier, we will support it at second reading, but we have to rework it. We will all benefit from being able to hear what the experts and representatives of organizations that specialize in these issues have to say.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government has tagged it with new lines, calling it the faster removal of foreign criminals act. It is unfortunate that these types of titles have now been introduced into legislation that is supposed to be very serious. This one is very serious. It is a continuation of our immigration drift.

We are going to support the bill to get it to committee because as New Democrats we believe our immigration system is fundamentally flawed and broken, and we are open to discussing how to improve it in any capacity. Some of the issues in the bill are going to be raised, and we will have some good expert testimony at committee to talk about these issues.

It is important to note that our immigration system is necessary in our country for us to function in an economic democracy. We do not have a population that can sustain itself alone.

We have been founded on the principles of multiculturalism and openness. That is changing because we are slowly eroding our immigration system. In fact, even in Windsor West, the riding I represent, I have an immigration office. The doors are shut. People cannot go there to get help on their immigration files.

Karen Boyce and Ian Bawden are in my office. Karen has been with me for 10 years and is finally going to retire at the end of December. I thank her for her commitment in all the cases she has strove through. In fact, many times on her own time she would actually get up in the middle of the night to call an embassy somewhere else to try to get paperwork or something processed. She would do that, literally, all the time. That is how dedicated she is. She has fought many times to have children pulled off planes, who were going to be deported to countries of which they never were actually part. They were born in Canada and their parents had been denied or their process for humanitarian grounds had not been accepted.

It is unfortunate, because when we look at an economy like ours in Windsor, it is critical that we have these processing issues taken care of rather quickly because we have so many people who cross the border into the United States.

I always use this example because I think it is important. We have a lot of doctors and other professionals who are not recognized in Canada and in Ontario who end up working over in Detroit, Michigan, and bringing that economic income stream back to our area. Ironically, sometimes when our hospitals are full here, or there is a specialty that we do not have, we send Canadian citizens over to those hospitals where they can be treated by the doctor who is not trusted over here in Canada. It is ironic that we pay a premium for it.

What is important is that we have many people who cannot get to their jobs until their actual immigration and processing have been completed. Often if we do not solve these cases they can lose those jobs. Those jobs are critical for our economy. The Canadian economy is not having the rebound we want, and I see it every single day on the streets of Windsor, so any extra employment that we can access in the United States is important. It has been a common thing that we have been doing for many years. It is one of the reasons we have a strong and healthy relationship. It is a symbiotic relationship between the Detroit greater region and Windsor Essex County. In fact it makes it a good economic strong hub. Part of that is the ability to traverse back and forth. Our immigration system is not contributing to success.

One of features of the bill that gives me some cause for concern is the concentration of power into the minister's office. At any time he can revoke or shorten the effective period of declaration for admissibility. That is one particular example.

The reason I am concerned is that I remember during the debate on Bill C-31, which was a refugee act that was changed, listening to the minister and the government members. The words they were using on Bill C-31 about the refugees in general were “protection”, “take advantage”, “security of population“, “abuse”, “crackdown” and “bogus”. With that type of tone, what are we going to have out of a minister's office that is going to have more capabilities and less control on oversight if that is the general theme and attitude about refugees?

I want to name a few refugees to Canada, because it is important to put a human face on our refugees. They are people like K'naan. He was born in Somalia. He spent his childhood in Mogadishu, lived there during the Somalia civil war and came to Canada in 1991. Is a person like that a threat? He is a refugee.

How about Adrienne Clarkson, our former Governor General of Canada? She emigrated from Hong Kong as a refugee in 1942. She came here, making her mark and contributing to Canada.

Fedor Bohatirchuk, a chess grandmaster who has since passed away, was persecuted in the Ukraine. He came to Canada and contributed for many years.

Sitting Bull, the Sioux chief, is an interesting one. He left America for Canada as a holy man who led his people as a tribal chief during the years of resistance in the United States. Sitting Bull eventually came to Canada from the United States and became a successful citizen.

In looking at some of these issues, I want to touch on one of the points that has been made with respect to criminal activity. Some of the comments that have been made by professionals are important.

Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer in Ottawa, spoke about how those who have been convicted of an offence, even a small or lesser offence, can now be deported outside of the country, which will put them further at risk or in trouble. I used to work at the Multicultural Council. I had a program called youth in action. I will talk a bit about that in a minute. However, I want to mention that when refugees or youth commit crimes it is sometimes a cry for help; sometimes it can be due to mental health; sometimes it is just a really bad mistake; sometimes they do not have medication and it could be due to psychological issues that are taking place. When they get into programs that assist those people, they actually become better citizens and better people who are more engaged and contribute to society on a regular basis.

The issue of mental health in the general Canadian public is swept aside, let alone when it involves those who are involved in a criminal activity. It is important for judges to have more flexibility to be able to determine the case. Before I get into the work we used to do, I want to say that our judicial system has made some terrible mistakes. It is not perfect. Mistakes can be made when decisions are being made with respect to people. Maybe information is not presented properly, did not get there or was inadmissible. As we know, those who have money will get the best lawyer they can because they want the best representation. How many refugees in Canada are walking around with a pile of cash and can hire the best lawyer? I have often seen this issue come through my office. It is horrible that people have spent money on lawyers by borrowing it from other people or using credit cards and other types of things, which they find very difficult to repay because they do not have that economic stream going at the moment, and that puts them in an even worse situation. That is the harsh reality of our judicial system.

I want to talk a bit about the Multicultural Council program that I ran. We had 16 to 18 youth at risk between the ages of 18 to 30. I know they are called youth, but it went all the way up to age 30. However, they were usually in the 20-year range. We had eight Canadians who had been in Canada basically all of their lives, who had made mistakes that created a problem by way of a minor fine, a penalty or a criminal record. Then there were eight new people who had just immigrated to Canada. We mixed them together to create a program called multicultural youth in action wherein they did community work, learned all kinds of life skills and conducted interviews. We had an over 90% success rate at getting them back into school and/or employment. When we think about it, that program ran for several years and was very successful.

I will conclude with this. What we were able to do with some of those youth, and I say some because we could not get them all, was save taxpayers money because they were not going back into the judicial system or going into the penal system, where they would actually learn more behaviours and take a longer time to be rehabilitated, as opposed to paying the price for what they had done and learning to contribute as a citizen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech from my colleague, and I guess he does not really understand what Bill C-43 is, fast-tracking foreign criminals out of Canada.

He wants to talk about how he thinks Canadian citizens should not be allowed back into the country. If he has a way for those criminals who have committed the crimes he has suggested to not come back to the country, I would suggest he introduce a private member's bill. No Canadian citizen is allowed to be barred from Canada.

Let us get back to the bill, because he did not speak very much about it, other than to ask why we are pursuing drug traffickers and why we are pursuing criminals who are not Canadian citizens and who have committed serious crimes in this country. If the member is saying it is okay for drug traffickers to stay here in Canada and we should not be pursuing them and we should be keeping Canadian citizens out of Canada, that is a backwards approach.

I am not sure if the member really understands the bill. Perhaps we should get the bill to committee, because it would actually give us an opportunity to educate this member and any of his other colleagues who do not understand Bill C-43. It is a perfect place for us to sit down, negotiate and obviously teach them what the bill is all about.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 should be a law that protects Canadians, a law that finally addresses past injustices. Unfortunately, the very opposite is true. This bill attacks the civil rights of Canadians. Never has a bill been such a huge disappointment.

For example, I shall quote Sir Winston Churchill who, during the Anzio Battle, said to an American general who had not been very active: “I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale.” The whale, in this case, is Bill C-43, a piece of legislation that in no way corresponds to what Canada needs. I will give three reasons for this.

Canada is a country in which the rule of law prevails. When someone does something wrong, he can expect to have justice meted out to him—this is true for everyone, not just those people that the Conservatives consider a little dangerous. It seems that the political powers that be are still intent on meddling in the management of immigration issues. People want the exact opposite of this bill. They do not want any more political interference in immigration matters. There has been far too much interference in the past, and as a result, what we need now is new legislation, and not simply a rehashing of old ideas from old governments.

We are seeing an increasingly arbitrary concentration of powers in the hands of the minister. The minister now not only wields political power, he also wants to wield legal power. As Machiavelli once said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What we are seeing in Canada is a government that interferes in immigration matters and merges electoral partisanship with legal duty. This problem should have been fixed; unfortunately, it is being perpetuated.

Bar associations and stakeholders in the legal community and the field of immigration rights have criticized the concentration of political power in the hands of the minister. They all agree that we should not do this, that we should do exactly the opposite. Some even say that the minister has discretionary power to determine the inadmissibility of a deportee’s family members. This is absolute discretionary power. If you are nice, if you look good for the media, and if you could be useful during a campaign, the minister will support you. And if not, it is a pity, but you will suffer the consequences.

As Montesquieu noted, there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. These basic democratic principles, these fundamental principles of our Constitution state that the legislative branch must be separate from the judiciary and from the executive branch. In this case, the government is trying to do exactly the opposite.

The government also wants to do away with the minister's responsibility to examine humanitarian considerations. Generally, in a judicial process, the whole file is considered so that a fair decision can be handed down. That is the normal judicial process. That is what we expected, but the government is doing the opposite. The most essential and most basic rights are being attacked, and this poorly conceived, poorly executed piece of legislation is going to be the subject of a court challenge. And once again, the government will lose, like it loses time and time again. It is a bad piece of legislation.

They were asked to stand up for Canada. What are they doing? The opposite: attacking Canadians. They are attacking their notion of the law.

They are attacking their right to a fair judgment.

Legal proceedings are an essential part of the legislation. However, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, commission members are appointed in haste, based on their ability to raise money for a political party, based on their personal friendships. This was already the case under the former government of a former political party.

The Conservatives are repeating the same mistakes, all the while saying that they will be tough on crime. No, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. We are asking for qualified individuals with solid legal training to make solid judgments. What are they doing? It is mediocrity at its finest: they are doing nothing. They are repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past. It is disastrous. We have never seen anything so pathetic.

It was proven that, upon reading the same legislation, some commission members accepted 98% of refugees, while a certain other commission member, in accordance with the same act, accepted only 2%. On the face of it, it is clear that this formula is not worth very much.

Cases of corruption have not just been pointed out, but they have been proven in court. These people have been convicted, found guilty of corruption beyond a shadow of a doubt. No corrections are made. We are asking for judges to be appointed, individuals who have judicial independence. Once again, they are appointing officials, friends, people who may not even be qualified. The government is not proving that they are qualified.

Once again, they are deciding to do the same things as in the past, with the same flaws, and they are going a step further by saying that they are going to fix the situation. Unfortunately, nothing at all is being fixed.

Now comes the third point, namely, whom they are targeting. All Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada may feel threatened. But that is where the major problem comes in. We are expecting a "Rizzuto" law. Mr. Rizzuto committed murders and is now in prison. He was not born in Canada, but he comes back here and everyone knows it. What is he going to do? He is going to commit murders. The police know it, all the criminal law experts know it. He comes to avenge his father and son, who were killed in a gang war.

We had hoped that this government, which claims to be tough on crime, would prevent individuals like that from coming to spread poison into our lives. But no, it seems to be clear that they are going after the little fish, the petty crooks, the small-time drug dealers, the people who get six months in jail. Yes, they have to be deported, but let us not forget the big fish, the people who bring in cocaine by the container-load. We are forgetting them, we are ignoring them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by addressing Bill S-11, the food safety bill. It was introduced by this government in the Senate to bring about changes that would strengthen our food safety system further following the implementation of the 57 recommendations of the Weatherill report, which further strengthened our system.

I believe the comments, to which the member referred, by the Conservative caucus were not about the NDP obstructing the bill in the Senate but rather about statements that had been made by NDP members previously following the introduction of the bill that the NDP would oppose the bill. Of course, the issue we are looking forward to is having it pass successfully in the Senate. We hope that people will see the urgency more clearly, that we will get the support of the Liberals and that we will see its rapid passage here in the House. We would be delighted if we had support to do that very quickly from the NDP and other parties.

Now for the business ahead of us.

This afternoon, we will continue our safe streets and communities week with second reading debate on Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

In last year's election, the Conservative Party promised to put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal. This bill follows through on our commitment to Canadians.

We will resume debate tomorrow, when I am optimistic, based on discussions, that debate will end—and, then, we will have concluded the first three weeks of our hard-working, productive and orderly fall sitting.

On our constituency week, I hope all members of Parliament and staff in this place will have an opportunity relax. Many of our pages will have their first opportunity to go home since they started the year here. I hope on our return we will all be ready to be productive and work hard because we have much to do.

On Monday, October 15, before question period, the House will start the second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. We will also debate this bill on Wednesday and Friday of that week. This, of course, is designed to continue to make Canada and, in fact, the whole world, a safer place.

After question period on October 15, we will kick-off debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act, which shares the same objectives. It would implement Canada's international obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Tuesday, October 16, shall be the fifth allotted day, which will see the House debate a Liberal motion. We eagerly await the content of that motion.

Thursday, October 18, shall be the sixth allotted day when we will consider the New Democratic proposal.

It is my personal hope that having given the NDP three chances already this fall to articulate to the House and to all Canadians how it will implement its $21.5 billion job killing carbon tax that it will finally choose this as its subject for debate. I hope the NDP members will seize that opportunity and let Canadians know once and for all the fine details of their scheme to raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and winter heat.

Should we have additional time that week upon our return, or even this week if we move quickly, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Of course, I am always open to suggestions from the opposition. If they are willing to accelerate any of those bills for quick passage, I will call them.

Finally, I wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that everyone has a productive and hard-working week working with their constituents.

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for his eloquent speech and say that I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

This bill, if passed as is, will lead to numerous legislative changes with the purpose of accelerating the deportation, to their country of origin, of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have committed a serious crime in Canada or abroad. The Conservatives say that the faster removal of foreign criminals would prevent some of them from abusing the Canadian legal system to try to delay their deportation and extend their stay in the country.

One of the main provisions of Bill C-43 would amend the legal definition of "serious criminality" in order to restrict access to the appeal process should an individual be found inadmissible by a judge. Currently, a permanent or temporary resident of Canada can appeal such a decision to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, unless the individual is sentenced to two years or longer.

Such a sentence generally leads to the automatic revocation of the permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal a determination of inadmissibility. If Bill C-43 is passed, this right would be revoked as soon as a sentence of imprisonment of six months or longer is imposed. Such a sentence will not necessarily be imposed in cases of excessively violent crimes, as some of my colleagues mentioned a little earlier. Such sentences will be given to people who repeatedly commit crimes that might be considered less serious. At that point, they receive a sentence that is more severe than the original one. These people are not necessarily violent criminals. They are people who could still be rehabilitated.

Bill C-43 also puts more powers in the hands of the minister by allowing him to render a decision on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. The minister is given very broad discretionary power in that case. He could now declare that a foreign national is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. There is no clear definition of "public policy considerations" here. The minister will define it, without further justification.

Furthermore, although Bill C-43 specifies that entering Canada through criminal activity does not automatically make a person inadmissible—which can be important for people who were victims of human trafficking networks—it will take away the minister's responsibility to consider the humanitarian circumstances related to the individual's case. As a result, the minister will no longer be required to consider particular circumstances, such as security considerations, human rights and international rights violations, or organized criminality, in order to determine whether or not a humanitarian exemption has to be granted to a claimant.

Bill C-43 has to do with an issue that is a central concern for Canadians: their safety.

Keeping the people of Canada safe is also a priority for the NDP. We recognize the need to have an efficient justice system in order to deport real criminals who are not Canadian citizens to their country of origin. We do not support allowing these dangerous criminals, who put the safety of Canadians at risk, to stay in the country. If circumstances require it, we want to make sure that those people can be quickly deported to their country of origin in order to protect Canadians' safety.

We in the NDP also believe that we can work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. That is why I will support this bill at second reading. We also believe that it is possible to protect our people and to avoid those abuses without trampling on the rights of individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

The NDP is opposed to the idea of refusing anyone access to a just and fair appeal process. We are also opposed to the idea of giving the minister the power to unilaterally prevent a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if justified by public policy considerations, without our being able to identify clearly what exactly those public policy considerations are.

At the moment, as they often do, the Conservatives are trying hard to focus the debate on the issue of criminality in order to try to hide from Canadians the fact that Bill C-43 would henceforth grant wide discretionary powers to the minister and could violate the rights of a large number of foreign nationals and permanent residents. It is much easier to accuse everyone who objects to this bill of being soft on crime, as we often hear, or of not caring about the welfare of victims. That is completely false, and we must be able to keep things in perspective if we are to do our work properly here in this House.

So, because of the precise problems I have listed, it seems to me essential that, in committee, we study each of the provisions of Bill C-43 in depth and consider the potential negative consequences of enforcing it in its present unamended form.

In committee, it will be possible to focus on the provisions of this bill that present the greatest problems and make the changes necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike are respected and protected.

Another problem with Bill C-43 that deserves to be studied in depth is the fact that the bill restricts judicial independence by preventing judges from considering both the nature of a crime committed by a resident, whether temporary or permanent, and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. So, with Bill C-43, judges would no longer be allowed to consider the fact that some refugees from war-ravaged countries may be suffering from a mental illness. As we know, unfortunately, people fleeing from countries in the grips of war all too often arrive in Canada bearing the severe physical and psychological consequences of the trauma they have gone through in their country of origin. Unfortunately, when those people do not receive treatment, they often end up committing crimes. Whether they are citizens or not, they need help and treatment. Given the resources they need, they can frequently be rehabilitated. That will not be true of all foreign criminals who are going to be caught, but it will be true of a number of them, especially if they are suffering from a mental illness as the result of the trauma they have gone through at home.

Furthermore, Michael Bossin, an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, has said that young offenders commit a crime that gets them into a system that gets them treatment, medication and a rehabilitation program. They have family support, they have community support, and they are in no way a threat to anyone anymore.

Unfortunately, the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may well affect a large number of permanent and temporary residents with mental health disorders, who could be helped with treatment.

As we can see, Bill C-43 eliminates a number of control mechanisms that currently exist in the legal system and that provide a certain amount of flexibility. However, the flexibility being discussed here is absolutely necessary when somebody is confronted with extraordinary circumstances, such as the right to appeal in the case of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of appeal on humanitarian grounds for those who are deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or of violating human or international rights. It is obvious that much remains to be done to ensure that Bill C-43 fully respects the fundamental rights of individuals who want to become citizens, whether they are admissible or not.

Rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a handful of foreign criminals, as the Conservatives have done many times over the last few weeks, they should make a greater effort to reunite families and recognize the skills held by new immigrants so that they can find a job that uses their experience and their talent. We all want to be more strict with non-citizens who commit serious crimes against Canadian citizens, but we must never forget the fundamental values on which our legal system is based, even when dealing with people who have broken the law.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43. It is legislation that deserves consideration but, like much that comes from the government, it has significant flaws.

When members on the other side talk about the bill and ask us whether we want criminals who should be deported to get deported, the answer to that rhetorical question is yes. No one is opposed to that. That is why we are actually supporting the bill in principle. Certain people who come to Canada, commit violent crimes, abuse the appeal process and who manage to stay here for many years ought to be deported.

Therefore, the answer to the rhetorical question of whether criminals who should be deported get deported, is absolutely yes. Is this the way to do it? Are the measures in the bill balanced, fair and reasonable and do they comply with the rule of law?

The government claims that Canada is a champion of the rule of law throughout the world. Is it reasonable for a rule of law to have such a broad category that says that anyone who may get a six month sentence for a first offence, after having been in the country for 15, 20 or 25 years and having been here since he or she was a child or an infant, should get deported to his or her so-called home? The home of someone who has been here since the age of 2 and is now 25 is Canada. The fact is that for the 1.5 million people who are here as permanent residents, who have been granted the right to live here as permanent residents and have the right to obtain citizenship once they apply, this is their home.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about a person being convicted of growing six marijuana plants. That person is treated as a serious criminal and is subject to deportation to the country of his or her birth without any right of appeal. I do not think that complies with the rule of law. In fact, a number of lawyers who have talked about this suggested that this would not pass with the courts and that it would face a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I want to thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who just spoke. I could feel how passionate she is about this issue.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton—North Delta who has played such an important role in the House on immigration and refugee issues. I thank her for her fine work on that.

The bill addresses the issue of people who come to Canada and commit crimes. The timing of the bill is interesting, because it comes on the heels of some very serious, difficult and controversial changes in immigration and refugee policy that have touched many members of my own community in Parkdale—High Park. I am speaking specifically about the refugee reform bill, Bill C-31, and also about cuts to refugee health care.

Part of my community is a place where many newcomers first come to Canada. We have seen waves of refugees come from different parts of the world. There are many religious institutions and places of worship that are amongst the oldest in the city of Toronto, because my riding is the first stopping off point for many newcomers to Canada. We have the oldest continuously functioning Jewish schul. We have one of the oldest Hindu temples. We have religious institutions of various denominations.

More recently we have many refugees coming from places such as Tibet and Hungary, as well as other places in Eastern Europe. Something that has been very controversial in our community, and we have joined health professionals in opposing, are the changes to deny some refugee claimants health care benefits.

I have seen, first-hand, people in my community who are directly affected by these changes. It has not been helpful that certain communities, such as the Roma community, have been demonized by the government. It creates a situation that is unhealthy for them here, even prior to the status of their refugee claim being assessed.

It is interesting that the Conservatives are now introducing a bill to get the immigration discussion back into a territory where they feel more comfortable, and that is the tough-on-crime approach. I see that in the political context of dealing with refugee and immigration issues.

The bill would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister in terms of discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. He can declare a foreign national inadmissible for up to 36 months if in his or her opinion it is justified by public policy considerations. The bill also relieves the minister of the responsibility to consider humanitarian and compassionate situations such as taking into consideration the interests of a child. The minister no longer has to consider humanitarian concerns at all.

It also gives the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exemption to the family member of a foreign national that is “inadmissible” if the minister believes it is against the national interest, specifically examining national security or public safety.

There are also changes in the bill about what constitutes serious criminality. 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 to an appeal. This would revoke that right with a conviction of six months or more, which has to be explored and investigated as to what kinds of crimes we are looking at and who would be most likely to be affected.

It would increase the penalties for misrepresentation, taking them from two years to five years for inadmissibility for permanent resident status. One thing that is very positive in the bill is that it would clarify that if someone enters Canada as part of an organized criminal activity, that on its own would not constitute inadmissibility, which may be important to people who are trafficked into Canada through some kind of criminal organization.

While I believe Canadians are legitimately concerned about the issue of non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada, we have a concern about concentrating more arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of newcomers to Canada, and I have direct experience with many newcomers in my community, are law-abiding people who do not commit crimes. We believe the Conservatives ought to spend more time and effort ensuring these people are treated fairly and are reunited with their families as quickly as possible.

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. We cannot take someone such as Conrad Black and welcome him back to Canada with open arms and claim, as the minister did, that this was independent of politics and handled by bureaucrats, and then introduce a law like this which clearly would concentrate more discretionary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Suddenly he seems to have a conversion on the road to Damascus and wants to deport convicted criminals instead of welcoming them with open arms. That is quite a change. However, there are a number of other ways the minister could help, such as maybe no longer appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board and having a fairer process there.

While the issue of criminal activity and ensuring we are not getting the wrong people in Canada is important, we believe there are concerns that are not being taken into account. Mental health issues are a big area of concern. In my communities and in communities across the country, there are people who come here as refugees from war-torn countries. They do not get the kind of mental health support they need. We know there is a disproportionate representation of people who are mental health survivors in the prison system who desperately need help and would benefit greatly from help here in Canada, including many refugees whom deportation will not help.

Canadians would see people from war-torn countries being disproportionately rejected from Canada under the bill. Mental health is clearly a huge issue, as is the lack of ability to appeal. That is also left up to the discretion of the minister. The lack of appeal is something that has been criticized in other immigration initiatives by the government and is certainly something that I would question here.

While of course we support ensuring that Canadians are protected from criminals who would take advantage of our immigration and refugee system and come to this country and commit crimes, there are problems with the bill that need serious discussion, investigation and change in order to do the job that it is meant to do.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill we are looking into today. It is, by all accounts, a bill to allow Canada to deport non-citizens who commit serious offences. This, in itself, is an eminently supportable goal, but it does not fully describe the entirety of Bill C-43.

As my colleague from Newton—North Delta, the New Democratic critic for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, has indicated, New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsible judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens. I agree that all Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent crimes in our communities. I believe it is also important for us to note that the overwhelming majority of newcomers to this country are actually law-abiding and follow the rules. Those newcomers also support the broader concept that is the stated intention of Bill C-43.

We cannot mix up the facts as we consider how best to weed out a small group of offenders who are no more a reflection of any community they come from than any domestic criminals are to their own home towns. We can see there is agreement on intent, but it is not a free pass for the government to do whatever it wants. New Democrats would like to see amendments to the bill that would allow us to arrive at a piece of legislation we can support. Ultimately, our criticism of the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relates to a handful of issues, not the least of which are the concentration of power in the minister and the abandonment of an appeal process.

New Democrats do not support slamming the door on an appeal process, just as we do not support granting the minister unilateral powers to stop a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on what is being called public policy considerations. Surely we can agree that is a vague and broad definition.

We can still hear the peanut gallery on the other side.

In fact, the manner in which this bill concentrates more power in the minister seems to indicate some kind of disbelief in the system that is in place, some kind of a belief that what the process really needs is a sheriff. In Bill C-43 we see that. Not only can the minister 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, but the minister may also, at any time—and I repeat, at any time—revoke or shorten the effective period of a declaration of inadmissibility.

This may sound like jargon, but there is a bigger problem at play that others will recognize, and that is the disturbing trend we see from the government, the trend of concentrating more power in the hands of individual ministers. This arbitrary power is granted at the expense of transparency and clearly defined policies that can be consistently administered.

Members may recall that this is one of the criticisms that was central to the changes to the Fisheries Act in the last budget. Those changes gave the minister discretionary power to determine whether a fish species was important enough to warrant protection. This bill continues that unfortunate trend. It is a pattern of behaviour that puts the government and its decisions behind closed doors. It makes our government more opaque and quite the opposite of the transparent and accountable administration Canadians desire and were promised. However, there is good news. This is something that can be fixed. If there is a willingness, there is a way.

Ministerial discretion can be replaced with clear and effective guidelines that can be publicly administered, which is something we hope the government will consider. It is something we know that Canadians want and will support.

What is more than a little strange is the way in which Bill C-43 would give the minister discretionary powers to act in the manner of the sheriff I just described. However, at same time, it would relieve that same person from similar responsibilities related to appropriate discretionary powers. We see the call for the minister to be given the power to declare a foreign national inadmissible, but in those cases where the minister is actually required to use extraordinary powers to ensure the system is performing to its potential, the Conservatives are begging off that part of the job.

As we know, the current arrangement means that on the request of a foreign national or even on the minister's own initiative, the minister is required to examine the circumstances of a person who is considered inadmissible on grounds of security, humanitarian or international rights violations, or organized criminality. In those instances where the minister feels a compelling case has been made, he or she can grant an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and take into consideration the interests of a child directly affected.

My colleague alluded to this a while ago with respect to children who came here with their family and may not have received Canadian citizenship. If they are permanent residents and have been here since the age of six months, or whatever age, and all of a sudden they find themselves in a dilemma such as this, the minister would then be able to say that they would have to go home to a land where they have never been. The new arrangement would relieve the minister of this obligation altogether. It is as if the Conservatives cannot fathom that there would ever be circumstances where an appeal might be legitimate or even successful.

Let us look at our own criminal justice system. We have had people criminalized and put in jail, but when they have appealed the decision, and sometimes it has taken years, the government has had to actually apologize for that, which is why the appeal process is important.

However, without appeal, it is a black and white view that does not match the reality of the world. It assumes that there will never be a miscarriage of justice, when we know full well that the potential for mistakes is always present, which is why we have appeal processes in the first place.

To recap, the minister wants to be able to act in a decisive manner on a case-by-case basis if he feels it is warranted. On the other hand, the Conservatives are asking to be excused from the responsibility of the office in terms of adjudicating what is basically an appeal process. What we have here is an appeal for both a concentration of power and the removal of a check and balance function. Again, it is about transparency and accountability. We need a check and balance function.

For New Democrats, these items need to be fixed. We have additional concerns with Bill C-43, which relate to changes in the definition of serious criminality as well as the intention to accept the decision of foreign courts that may not operate at the same high standard as ours do in Canada.

As a bit of an aside, I am sure there are many professionals struggling for recognition of their foreign credentials who are looking on with a sense of disbelief. When it comes to branding someone a criminal, the Conservative government is willing to accept the standards of courts from countries whose professional credentials are more vigorously challenged. I am sure that point is not entirely lost on people who are struggling on that front.

To be clear, the larger goal of Bill C-43 is not without its merit. New Democrats think this is a case where we can tighten things up. We could take the bill to committee, roll up our sleeves and do the work to ensure Canada comes out of the process with a better Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

However, most of us in this place know that there are bigger challenges that we must address as well. We hear it from our constituents and we see it in our offices.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

I am an immigrant to this country and I am thankful for the opportunities I have had here. Many other members in the House are also immigrants to Canada.

I listened to the debate this morning. The member from Winnipeg North is absolutely right. The vast majority of the immigrants who come here, at one point or another, are good citizens. They contribute to the economy, the culture and make good citizens.

I am also a father of a young girl and boy. Therefore, for Conservatives to constantly ask about which side the New Democrats are on when it comes to rapists and murderers, as a father, I know which side I am on.

We agree in principle with Bill C-43, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We agree that there are some good aspects to the bill. However, there are many holes in it and we need to be look at those. Therefore, we will support sending it to committee so it can look at some of these issues.

One issue I have with the bill is it concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. Basically the minister can declare a foreign national admissible for up to 36 months if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public consideration. The minister may also at any time revoke or shorten the effective period of declaration of admissibility.

I have trouble with the word “opinion”. What is that opinion? How does the minister form that opinion? Are there criteria set as to how that opinion is formed? It is very troubling.

The second component I also have trouble with is the change to what constitutes a serious criminality for the purposes of access to an appeal of determination of inadmissibility. Previously, a conviction in Canada resulting in a prison sentence of two or more years constituted an automatic stripping of permanent residency or a temporary resident's right to an appeal at the immigration appeal division. However, Bill C-43 would revoke the right to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility where there would be a conviction of six months or more.

We talked about minor offences and young people this morning. There may be young people who have committed a robbery and are put in prison. Their whole family may be here and they would have no right to appeal to get a fair hearing. They may be able to reform and become productive members of society, yet they will be sent back to a country with which they may not be familiar. Therefore, I have a problem with that.

The bigger issue the Conservatives are trying to avoid is the whole immigration system that we have in place. It was broken before. The Liberals had a chance to fix it for many years. We have seen lineups and wait times being increased for family reunification for spouses and for skilled workers. That was under the Liberals. Then the Conservatives said that they would fix it and make it better. What I have seen in the last six years is the dismantling of the immigration system, which is broken, and that is a bigger issue. They are not fixing the immigration system so it is fair, effective, efficient and serves the needs of Canadians.

We are all familiar with the fact that Canada has an aging population and we do need immigrants to fill the jobs that would help the government bring in revenues so we can provide services such as education, medicare and other services on which Canadians depend. Yet that does not concern the Conservatives. They are avoiding the whole issue of fixing the system so it is effective, efficient and is better for our economy.

I will give some examples. A young husband and a wife came into my office a few months ago and I had a chance to sit down with them. They had gone to another country looking for a caregiver. They interviewed a person who they felt could provide child care for their daughter. They came back to Canada and wanted to submit an application. The husband was a businessperson and the wife was a teacher for the local school board. They wanted their daughter to be taken care of at home by a live-in caregiver from another country who they would sponsor. When they submitted their application, they found out that it would take four years before they could get the application reviewed by our embassy.

Therefore, if one were to have a three or four year old child, he or she would have to wait four years to bring someone to Canada to provide child care services. The couple I spoke of are productive members of our society, a teacher and a businessperson, who are providing jobs in our community, yet one of them will have to stay home to take care of their daughter. That was their predicament. That is not right. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed. That is what they told me.

There is another case of a woman who had stage four breast cancer and was trying to sponsor her mother to come here from Romania to spend the last four or five months with her so she could be surrounded by family. Her mother had come to Canada previously on a temporary visa and had returned. This woman wanted to spend time with her mother. Because of the present rules, her mother was denied a temporary visa. The system is broken. Her mother had already come to Canada and returned, yet she was denied a visa to return to be with her daughter during her last days and take care of her. The daughter was willing to provide financial support and health care insurance for her mother.

Another example is that of a dying father who requested that his son come and visit him during his last days in hospital. He was denied a visa to come to Canada. When the father died, the son again applied for a TRV, a temporary resident visa, to come to Canada to see his father for the last time.

These are the kinds of problems that the government is failing to fix. If there were—

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what else is there to say after the hon. member for Gatineau summed up the issue so well? I will say that it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in today's debate.

First, I want to stress that, yes, we do share the government's concern over serious crimes committed by individuals who are not Canadian citizens. However, we think it is just as normal to share some real concerns about Bill C-43.

This bill will prevent permanent residents and illegal immigrants who are sentenced to a jail term of six months or more in Canada from appealing their deportation order. The individuals convicted would then be sent back to their country 12 to 15 months sooner than if they could have pleaded their case before the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, only immigrants sentenced to more than two years in a penitentiary are deprived of that right. According to the Department of Immigration, over 2,400 convicted individuals are currently appealing to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The new rule would eliminate half of those cases.

The bill includes other changes to the act. For example, those who are inadmissible for serious reasons will no longer be allowed to apply to stay in the country on humanitarian grounds. Moreover, the Minister of Immigration would be given a new power. That is indeed the case. Another power is given to the minister. Obviously, he must have felt that all the powers given to him under Bill C-31 were not enough.

And now this government goes so far as to deny permanent resident status to an individual, for reasons of public interest. We can be sure that the courts will have their hands full, even though that is already the case.

Finally, under Bill C-43, a foreign national would also be denied entry to Canada if a member of his family is denied entry for reasons related to security, organized crime or war crimes, even if the individual who committed the crime does not accompany that person.

The immigration minister said that his Bill C-43 seeks to restructure the deportation of convicted criminals by restricting their access to the appeal process. The minister indicated that, currently, many immigrants who have been convicted of crimes can avoid deportation because they were sentenced to a prison sentence of less than two years. The term “many” should be put in perspective because, according to Statistics Canada, in 2010-11, 86% of all prison sentences were of six months or less. We want facts because facts show the real picture.

As I already mentioned, this bill seems to follow the Conservative government's alarming pattern of giving greater discretion to ministers in matters of immigration and public safety. The high degree of discretion that Bill C-43 grants to the minister with respect to issuing or revoking a declaration, which would prevent a foreign national from becoming a permanent resident for a maximum period of 36 months, seems to go too far and must be clarified. To justify the discretionary powers that he would be given, the minister said, “We just do not have the time.”

Unfortunately, a little bit of time is what some immigrants need sometimes, if only to fill out all the forms and paperwork, to ask questions and make telephone calls to find out where a certain document has to be submitted and by when. Furthermore, massive cuts are being made to Citizenship and Immigration's client service unit. It would not be very difficult for the minister to give them a little more time. It would be the least he could do.

Michael Bossin, an immigration lawyer in Ottawa, says that, in his experience, jail time for these young offenders teaches them a lesson, they get a job, become responsible, build a family and no longer pose a danger to the public. According to Mr. Bossin, with a stay of removal, a young immigrant reacts as though he were on probation and often changes his conduct. Mr. Bossin believes that the changes to the new law could result in the export of Canada's social problems and will not deal with the underlying causes of criminality.

Once again, this government relies on clichés far too often and it does not address the source of the problem. That is what it should be doing instead.

In addition, Mr. Bossin believes that people with a mental illness would suffer undue hardship if they were deported to a country where they are often stigmatized and punished because of their condition. On that topic, Ms. Lash, an immigration and refugee lawyer with community legal services in Ottawa, says that those changes will affect many individuals with psychiatric problems.

According to lawyer Joel Sandaluk, if Bill C-43 becomes law, it is likely to divide families. He states that this is going to destroy families who have been in Canada for a long time and that, if the parents or other family members are deported from Canada, this will do irreparable damage. The damage will be irreparable because we are talking about the lives of human beings. We must never forget that.

In addition, Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, said that Bill C-43 raises constitutional issues under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers across Canada are speaking up for the rights of Canadian immigrants, many of whom came to Canada at a young age. They were raised and educated here, they started families here and they started businesses here. Many companies in Quebec City were founded by immigrants who have received major awards for entrepreneurship. By the way, I congratulate them and I am proud of them.

The government's proposal is clumsy, because it is likely to have a significant impact on immigrants who do not have Canadian citizenship. In fact, the legislation will even apply to permanent residents who have been in Canada for decades.

As justification for this bill, the government has given examples of cases where immigrants have committed serious crimes and then used the system to delay their deportation for years. Those examples show flaws in the system, I agree. It is important to study the matter. We need to know what those flaws are and make sure that any gaps are plugged rather than resorting to stereotypes.

The NDP wants to move this bill forward in committee. Despite the bill's clear deficiencies, we want to hear experts give their opinions on the matter so that reasonable solutions to the problem can be found. New Democrats believe that it is possible to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our system of appeals, and to do so without trampling on human rights. The NDP also supports those newcomers who want the government to focus on improving the fairness and the speed of the immigration system for the great majority of people who do not commit crimes and who live by the rules.

To conclude, this is one more bill where the Conservative government tells itself that there is nothing finer than to use its majority to push bills through and to steamroller over the opposition and especially over experts in the field. I have quoted a number of them here who confirm that we absolutely must take longer with, and go deeper into, social problems. This bill is oversimplified. We are showing prejudice and a lack of class in dealing with our immigrants. They are here among us and they function very well. In some cases, they are extraordinary people. I have met them, and frankly, they are models for our society.

I feel that it would be a real shame to remove these models, who are teaching our younger people profound and universal Canadian values. It would be a real shame to send these people back with their rights trampled on in this way.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by handing out compliments to my colleagues from Newton—North Delta and Saint-Lambert, who are doing absolutely remarkable work on issues that are not always easy. I will continue in the same vein as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway and talk about certain aspects of this bill. Speaking of compliments, we said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading—let the members opposite take note of this—because we want to study it further in committee.

I must say that, based on everything I have been hearing for the past few days, studying this in committee will be a daunting task. After a quick glance at this bill, it is easy to see that it is flawed. Imagine all the work an in-depth study will entail.

As an aside, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has many newcomers in his riding. My riding of Gatineau does not. It is a typical Quebec riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families. One might think that Gatineau does not have any problems regarding immigration or refugees, but my riding assistant might beg to differ. I tip my hat to her. Being so busy, I do not see much of her. Aline Séguin does absolutely incredible work on files that are not easy. When we get the chance to sit down together and talk, you would be surprised at the things that I learn. In my riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families, the majority of our files have to do with immigration, refugees, visas, etc. I hear terms that I am not necessarily familiar with and it is positively dizzying.

Over the years—and I already have quite a few under my belt—whether I was working in radio or television, I learned how easy it is to get people up in arms, to take extremely serious and human subjects and to completely and totally dehumanize them. It is easy to give certain impressions and to play on people's worries and fears.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North seems to be offended by the bill's short title. I am too. I always say that, when it comes to the members opposite, reality is in the details. The full title of the bill is An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I would like to emphasize the “refugee protection” part of the title because, when we look at the bill, the short title says something different. When I was studying law, I was taught that the short title was a way to shorten titles that were sometimes too long. In law, that is what the short title is. Yet, here, the short title often shows us the intention behind what the members opposite are constantly trying to achieve with their bills. In this case, it is informative because the short title really jumps off the page.

We are talking about An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One could wonder how a title like that could be shortened since it is already quite clear and concise. But, the Conservatives shortened the title to the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. When I saw that, I said to myself, “Wow! There are going to be plenty of problems with this.” What struck me, when I looked into the subject a little, was that it is difficult to determine how many cases this bill will affect. Why? The reason is that, when we are dealing with the members opposite, we are never able to access any information. It is like going to the dentist and trying to have a tooth extracted every time. And yet, this seems to be an extremely important and valid issue.

I always tell myself that, when we are in this impressive and imposing chamber, we have a role to play. I start thinking about how I am going to go back to the law faculty at the University of Ottawa just to tell them to forget this other principle of law that is taught, that it is not true and that the legislator speaks for the sake of speaking. In fact, I find that, often in this magnificent chamber, people speak for the sake of speaking. Laws are being created that leave me wondering what problem they address.

The government invents problems in order to draft bills that it can show off to people on the 6 o’clock and 11 o’clock news. It is really sad, because this perpetuates prejudices that are so easy to transmit.

When I was a little girl, my parents told me Canada was a beautiful country. They infused me with pride in Canada from my youngest days. Our parents were Franco-Ontarian, but we, the children, were born in Quebec. We took full advantage of our beautiful Canadian federation. My father often told us that the beauty of Canada lay in its three founding peoples. Of course he meant the first nations, Quebec and Canada.

Another element of this beauty is the perception people have of Canada as a land of welcome; a land that takes care of its citizens, of course, but is also concerned with what happens elsewhere. I am not trying to make everyone’s hearts bleed, but everyone knows that. My father always said that Canada welcomed everyone with open arms. I grew up with that concept and that belief. In the last 10 or 15 years, a harder tone has crept into such talk.

Perhaps the media are a little bit to blame. Television news is now on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the ratings wars, news organizations often work very hastily and try to find news items that will shock and provoke. What could be easier than to use another human being badly and keep him down? That is what happens when we talk about immigrants and refugees. At least that is so in my humble opinion, which no one is obliged to share.

When I was young, I had some problems understanding the nuances concerning refugees.

What I understand now is that while an immigrant makes the decision to come here, a refugee has no choice. The refugee is seeking a land that will welcome him, because if he stays where he is, he may be killed. As we begin, can we keep this basic concept in mind?

That said, there always are good people and those who are not so good. Like Jack Layton, I have a tendency to remain an eternal optimist and be positive. I tell myself that most people are fundamentally good. I still believe that, although it is sometimes difficult when I see the morning news. Anyway, in my heart, I still believe it.

The bills introduced by the members opposite always try to twist concepts that otherwise would be positive and humane. These bills are making our society one that trusts almost nothing and no one. They leave the very disagreeable impression that on every street corner lurks a criminal refugee who is the worst person ever born, but luckily, here is the great Captain Canada, also known as the Minister of Immigration. He will ensure that our society can live without fear, because he will be able to send that bad person back where he came from, no matter what will happen to him there.

This bill, like many others, worries me greatly. My only warning is that many powers are being taken away from the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and given to the minister. I like the minister, but I would not give him—or any other minister—carte blanche.

Thus, we must not think that this bill will be taking away all recourse. In fact, it creates tons of recourse. The party across the way, by creating or passing this kind of measure, will ensure that arguments will no longer be made on appeal and that they will no longer concern the facts of the case. With my crystal ball, I predict that there will be many instances of recourse to get a judicial review of the minister’s decisions. It will all serve to open another Pandora’s box—and the results may be nasty.

So, once again, I hope that they will listen to what is said in committee, that the committee is able to do its work thoroughly, and that the members opposite will stop thinking that a bill is good just because they wrote it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the name of Bill C-43, which in part states “foreign criminals act”.

I pose this question because I know that the member is fairly knowledgeable about other legislation passed by this particular minister. In my opinion, it really sends a very negative message about Canada being a tolerant society and so forth.

What we are really talking about is permanent residents, the 1.5 million permanent residents. Here, it was interesting that the member referred to the issue of priorities. One of the areas that we really need to look at in this regard is the processing of citizenships. What happens nowadays is that we have permanent residents who apply for citizenship and are waiting longer than two years before being granted their citizenship.

Could the member comment on that aspect? I ask because it is related to permanent residents. On the one hand, the government seems to want to punish permanent residents and on the other hand it is completely ignoring the need to speed up the processing so that permanent resident can in fact become citizens.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House and speak about the important issue of immigration law, procedure and policy in this country.

Before I do, I want to point out the fantastic work done by my colleague from Surrey, British Columbia, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. She has done an outstanding job in showing Canadians a different and better way of making immigration policy in Canada, one that would streamline our system and make our immigration system more effective and efficient, but would retain the kind of compassion and respect for law and procedure that all Canadians cherish and have learned to recognize as a hallmark of our system.

The government of course controls the House agenda, particularly a government with a majority like the Conservatives currently enjoy. It gets to choose to bring forward whatever legislation it wants.

I had the privilege of being our party's immigration critic for a year. I represent the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, where the number of new Canadians is among the highest in the country. Well over 70% of the people in my riding represent first, second or third generation Canadians. My office deals with thousands of immigration cases every year. Accordingly, I have a representative sample of what the major issues and problems are in the immigration system.

It strikes me as interesting and fundamentally disappointing that of all the issues in the immigration system the government could be dealing with right now, it has chosen to focus on the deportation of certain permanent residents. I will be getting to what I think should be more important and pressing priorities in a moment.

The bill basically focuses on the important but relatively narrow issue of the procedures to be invoked in deporting people who may have committed crimes in this country or otherwise misrepresented themselves.

The NDP recognizes and supports the need for an effective and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. All citizens of this country would agree with that statement. We understand the need to monitor and modernize our occasionally slow system and support efforts to do so.

Nonetheless, this bill contains a mixture of good and troubling things. It would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by giving him new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. The bill would relieve the minister of the responsibility of examining humanitarian circumstances in certain cases. It would give the minister new discretionary authority to provide an exception to the family member of a foreign national who is declared inadmissible. Bill C-43 would change what constitutes the definition of serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility. It would increase the penalty for misrepresentation and would clarify that entering the country with the assistance of organized criminal activity does not on its own lead to inadmissibility.

Members can see that there is a mixture of some positive steps and some regressive and negative steps in the bill. It is a common feature of the government and the current Minister of Immigration in particular to constantly want to concentrate discretionary power in the sole hands of the minister. The government seems to want to continue to try to tighten and reduce and restrict the ability of judicial oversight or access to appeal of decisions often made by single people who are not accountable and who are often political appointees.

These are very troubling components of the Conservative government's approach to the legal system. It is not limited to immigration; we see this in the Conservatives' approach to crime in general.

Where the NDP parts ways with the Conservatives is that we believe that we can build and improve our immigration system without trampling on people's rights, without concentrating dangerous discretion and power in the sole hands of the Minister of Immigration, while preserving mechanisms that ensure effective review by courts and democratically elected representatives in Parliament and which build up sufficient flexibility to ensure that due consideration is always given to the unique circumstances of every case.

Canadians are rightly proud of our fair and compassionate system and they oppose the government's move toward a cold, meanspirited, ideological, inflexible and extreme position on immigration.

We have seen serious questions of constitutionality raised in the government's agenda. We know that the Justice Department gives advice to government ministers that they are likely pursuing ideologically based legislation that is unconstitutional, and the government says it does not care.

There have been three cases in the last four months where courts have struck down as unconstitutional violations of Canadians' charter rights, which have resulted from the government's blind ideological zeal to pass legislation that makes it look tough but is not backed up by evidence or respect for the courts or the constitution of this land.

An example of the government's meanspirited attitude, and I think one of the reasons this bill is before us today, is to change the channel on Canadians' abhorrence and widespread opposition to the government's taking away of the health care rights of refugee claimants in this country. Whenever the government gets in trouble, which it does quite often, it tries to put forward some tough on crime measure and tries to switch Canadians' attention to important but relatively minor issues in the grand scheme of things.

Here are the real problems with the immigration system that the government should be addressing in legislation before the House. There are huge waiting lists for every single type of immigration application, across the board with no exceptions. The fastest immigration application possible is generally when someone sponsors a spouse. When a Canadian marries someone who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and quite rightly wants to have their spouse with them, that process takes one to two years.

The current waiting list for someone to sponsor their parents is 10 to 13 years long. The government was so inept and incompetent in dealing with this issue, the only way it could handle it was to impose an absolute two-year freeze on any applications by any Canadian or permanent resident to sponsor their parents, period. That remains in force.

The employers of this country who want to bring skilled workers here routinely complain that it takes six months, one year, two years, three years, five years or seven years. Most of the time it takes so long to get a skilled worker here to satisfy their business needs that by the time they actually get the application approved it is too late.

The question of granting visitor visas is so important. The visitor visa system is absolutely and fundamentally broken in this country. The system is unjust and arbitrary, with no right of appeal. In my neck of the woods, where I have an extensive South Asian population, the refusal rate of visitor visas applications at one of the two visa offices in Chandigarh, India, is 53%. More than half of the applications in Chandigarh are rejected by that office.

What are these applications for? They are for people who want to come to Canada to attend weddings of their family members, births, anniversaries, graduations and visits so that brothers and sisters who have not seen each other for decades can reunite. These applications are for the very important events that Canadians cherish and want to share with their families. The government sits idly by while tens of thousands of visa applications are rejected every single year for no reason whatsoever.

Every member in the House knows that people come to their offices and tell them that they do not understand why their visa applications have been rejected by some faraway, anonymous person working in a consulate, with the applicant having no right of appeal and no way of accessing that person.

These are the kinds of issues the government should be tackling in the current immigration system. These are the broad, general, widespread issues and problems that Canadians face on a day-to-day basis.

I call on the government and the minister to quit playing politics with the immigration system and trying to look like they are tough on crime and actually solve the real problems of the immigration system and produce a modern immigration system that can quickly, efficiently and fairly process every application. There is no reason that any application across the board should not be processed from start to finish within 24 months, and why we should not have a fully computerized system where Canadians could have accountability from the bureaucrats making decisions.

That is the kind of legislation this side of the House would support. We call on the government to table such legislation in the House to make our immigration system modern and helpful, because it is so important to Canadians' futures and the economy of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I know there are cases like this in his own riding and that he is the immigration critic for his party. He therefore has a great deal of experience with these kinds of issues.

He just gave us an eloquent example. He mentioned of course some well-known individuals, but for everyone, section 42 of the current legislation stipulates that if the person accompanying you, for instance, your husband or wife, has a criminal record in the country of origin, you will be denied entry to Canada. Now Bill C-43 is making penalties even tougher. Indeed, even if the individual does not accompany you, but if they have committed any offences whatsoever, then quite simply, you will automatically be denied entry.

The member gave the example of visitor visas. This is even worse. I have been a member of this House since 2004 and have experienced other governments, including his party's government. I have never seen such a serious erosion of our immigration system and Canada's ability to welcome people. That is one major problem. Canada is refusing more and more visas, not only for the reasons the member mentioned, but for all kinds of reasons.

Sometimes even sports teams cannot enter Canada to take part in tournaments for all kinds of reasons. In my riding, I knew someone from Haiti. He was told that he could attend his mother's funeral in Haiti if he wanted to, but there was no guarantee that he would be allowed to come back. Bill C-43 will only make these situations worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

It seems as though the Conservatives have hired a publicity specialist since they took power, since bill titles are worded in such a way that no one could be opposed to the bill. It is a bit like sugar pie. However, as legislators, we must obviously read the bill and get familiar with the details, the ins and outs, before making a decision about it. We cannot make our decision based on the title; we must base our decision on all of the elements of the bill.

A quick read of Bill C-43 exposes a lot of flaws, gaps and vagueness. There are indeed some measures to be adopted to deport criminals who are permanent residents but abuse the system and the procedures to remain in Canada or Quebec.

I think that all members of the House agree on that. After listening to my colleagues who spoke earlier and after reading some other speeches made since the bill was introduced, I see that we are unanimous on that. However, does Bill C-43 solve all of those problems? No. Does it create others? Unfortunately, I believe so. That is what I will speak about for the next few minutes.

An ideology is behind all of this. This was brought up by the two members who just spoke during questions and comments. The Conservatives are using a lot of prejudices and clichés to promote what I like to call a “tonight we will scare people” ideology.

The notions of criminality and immigration are often confused, as is the case in this bill, which talks about criminality in relation to immigration. So, whether in reference to criminality or immigration, the Conservatives are trying to prove to certain people that there is a danger. Some refugees arrive by boat and, suddenly, we are led to believe that we are being invaded by a host of refugees arriving from all over. And they are not just refugees—that is not how they are referred to—they are criminals. That is what the government wants people to believe. This makes it easier for the government to tell Canadians not to worry because it will send the criminals back.

On weekends, when we go out and meet the people in our ridings, we realize that they are not aware of all the details of these situations, and they do not know exactly what happened. However, they saw the Minister of Immigration at a press conference talking about some extreme examples that obviously do not happen every day. Those examples should be used to address the flaws in legislation. We agree with that. But we should not generalize and make people believe that all cases are like that. I think we need to settle down, take a deep breath and correct the real problems. We should not play politics at the expense of the most disadvantaged—immigrants and people grappling with certain other problems.

The Bloc Québécois obviously understands that reasons for protecting society have to be included in immigration laws. Of course, a society will naturally want to receive law-abiding immigrants who have a real desire to integrate. As well, a society will naturally not to want to become a safe haven for criminals who want to flee their own countries. But some of them manage to sneak in. It is absolutely normal for the minister to speak out against it, and that is what everyone else does too. It is also normal to try to improve processes so that proceedings for the deportation of criminals do not drag on.

I talked about abuse just now. We talk about abuse when people come to Canada and continue to do what they did in their country of origin. For instance, they may be street gang members. Sometimes, street gang members from a country get together and organize themselves in another country. A street gang in a country can have roots in other countries. That can also happen to us. If the first thing those people do when they come to Canada is to join a street gang instead of integrating into society, we will obviously not want to keep those types of immigrants here.

People may be shocked by the examples of people who abuse the processes available to immigrants in order to further delay their deportation. But the minister uses those examples to make us believe that everyone is like that, which is not the case.

However, those measures have to be well targeted; they have to prevent criminals from entering, not stop innocent people at the border.

These measures also have to be proportionate. The government must propose effective measures that respect fundamental rights. We must not adopt a measure that is akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly.

Although the purpose of Bill C-43 is commendable, the bill has not achieved the necessary balance to fill the gaps in the current legislation. My colleagues talked about proposing some amendments to the bill in committee. This would allow us to study the bill, which is the right thing to do.

The current legislation includes a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for immigrants who feel wronged by the first level decision. Some restrictions already exist. Under the current legislation, a permanent resident or a foreign national who is inadmissible on the grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality does not have access to the Immigration Appeal Division.

Currently, serious crime is defined as the commission of an offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years that resulted in a prison sentence of two years. Bill C-43 further limits the right to appeal by reducing the imprisonment criterion for serious criminality to six months only.

I heard my colleagues talk about this and I agree with them. What is serious criminality? We would not want to keep someone who lands here and becomes a thief and a highway robber, who commits sexual assault, who repeatedly commits crimes that are punishable by lengthy prison sentences. There is a big difference between someone who commits a serious crime and someone who is found guilty of or charged with possession of drugs—marijuana for example—possession of stolen property under $5,000, or public mischief. I do not have many examples, but I believe a person can be charged with public mischief for urinating on the street or in a parking lot. There is a big difference between that type of public mischief and a more serious crime. I am not saying that people should not be punished for mischief; they should. I am just wondering whether that is reason enough to deport someone. There is a big difference between belonging to a street gang and committing public mischief or being in possession of some marijuana.

The Bloc Québécois is also concerned about the cumulative effect of the Conservative measures. For example, under Bill C-43, a sentence of only six months qualifies as serious criminality. It is important to see the connection with the many minimum sentences that the Conservatives are incorporating into their bills. They have just added a bunch of sentences so that less serious crimes can be used as a pretext to deport people who could contribute to Quebec and Canadian society after they have made amends. The Conservatives are imposing more and more minimum sentences of one to two years in prison, without any regard for how serious the offence actually is and without taking into account the extenuating circumstances.

We have often fought here in the House against the imposition of minimum sentences for anything and everything. This has been the Conservatives' pet project since they came to power in 2006. Regardless of what happened—for example, if the person was only the driver during a crime—and regardless of any extenuating circumstances, what counts is that the person was there at the time of the crime, and he must serve a minimum sentence like the others. The Conservatives are tying judges' hands because there are no gradations in the sentences that they can impose. This breeds inequity.

As a result, an increasing number of people will be labelled as having committed a serious crime. I am thinking of offences related to the possession of narcotics in particular.

I will end my remarks here. Members have talked a lot about the minister's discretionary power. That is another weakness of this bill. We are being told that this process will be guided by regulations, but we do not yet know what these regulations will be. I hope that this will be clarified in committee and that changes will be made to this bill so that we can be safe and so that we are not deporting people who do not deserve to be deported.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with some of our concerns about Bill C-43.

Another concern deals with the power grab by the minister. The minister has demonstrated in other pieces of legislation that he feels he should take it upon himself to make fairly profound decisions, such as determining which countries in the world are safe countries, or what grouping of two or more people who come to Canada should be listed as irregulars. Now, in this particular bill, he wants to have sole authority to ban someone from coming to Canada.

Does the member recognize the value of putting checks in place to protect people who might want to apply to visit Canada and thereby prevent any given minister from going on a power trip because he does not like a region of the world or has a bias against some beliefs that some people might hold? Does she believe there needs to be a check put into place to prevent the minister from taking actions that would not necessarily conform to what Canadians would want to see?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a reputation for being a welcoming country, but unfortunately, under this government, problems with our immigration system keep piling up. Instead of dealing with the cumbersome bureaucracy, the Conservative government has instead introduced another bill, on the heels of Bills C-4 and C-31, that will not do much and, in fact, will cause more problems of injustice.

Bill C-43 seeks to deal with crime and speed up the deportation of immigrants who commit crimes in Canada, but also of permanent residents who have become Canadian citizens.

My colleagues in the official opposition and I, along with colleagues from the other opposition parties, all agree that it is important to have a reliable and fair judicial apparatus. People who commit serious crimes and who are not Canadian citizens should indeed be punished, but let us not be deceived by this bill. The fight against crime is just a smokescreen. The real purpose of Bill C-43 is to give the minister more discretionary power and to remove all flexibility from the justice system and all independence from judges. This will only further politicize our immigration system instead of making it fairer and more efficient.

The bill will make a number of changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will name a few.

It will change the appeal process in certain cases, which goes against a fundamental right; permanent residents, refugees and illegal immigrants who receive a prison sentence of six months or more in Canada can no longer appeal their deportation; the bill will also allow authorities to hold at the border individuals who pose a risk to Canadians; it will require Federal Court judges to impose certain detention conditions on a person deemed inadmissible; it will put more powers in the hands of the minister—he could decide to deny temporary resident status if doing so is justified by public policy considerations interest, but unfortunately, the bill does not define “public policy considerations”; in fact, the bill gives the minister the power to define “public policy considerations” himself—; and the bill removes the right to appeal if the prison sentence was six months or more.

The first problem with this bill is that it does not differentiate between a minor offence and a serious crime, which is what the hon. Liberal member pointed out. An immigrant who receives a six-month sentence would automatically be deported. The right to appeal is revoked. In addition, the bill redefines “serious criminality” and includes minor offences. With no right to appeal and with such a broad definition, we can expect to see court challenges. This approach is not at all consistent with Canadian law.

The other problem, which is even more serious, has to do with the discretionary power the minister wants to give himself. He is the one who decides whether to issue a visa or not, but he is no longer required to consider the humanitarian circumstances of the situation. That is a double standard. In fact, we get the impression that the minister is targeting immigrants and refugees, forgetting that the vast majority of them are not criminals.

There is no question that this bill will end up eliminating the safeguards that allow our justice and immigration systems to deal with particular circumstances. Immigration officers and judges no longer have the power to examine the cases before them. That is quite serious. Judges have the power to judge, but they no longer have the power to do so properly. Way to go. The minister is imposing a standard model on the system. Abuse of power is a very real possibility. If the government makes mistakes, how will the people affected be able to defend their rights? They have no recourse, and that is serious.

The goal of the bill is commendable, but all those aspects give us reason to fear that there is a breakdown in our Canadian justice and immigration systems.

The fundamental question is this: do we want major decisions in criminal law to be made by a minister? In a state governed by the rule of law, such as Canada, the principle of balance between the judicial, governmental and legislative powers is essential.

Why is the whole process being so politicized? What is the justification for this discretionary power? The Minister of Immigration answered this recently by saying that he did not have the time, and added that it was important to act when foreign nationals were at an airport. It does not always happen like that, and things are not always so simple. In fact, it is always more complicated.

Too much haste could produce the opposite effect and create a system plagued by abuses of power, as we heard earlier. It could trigger legal challenges and lapses with regard to our international obligations. The bill's intention is good, but the text really needs to be improved, to ensure that it respects our basic rules of law. The entire immigration system needs to be reformed, but certainly not with the radical measures proposed by the Conservative government.

Our system is marred by bureaucratic problems and arbitrary decisions. Since the Conservatives came to power, there has been a backlog of over 1.5 million immigration applications. Parents and grandparents who want to be reunited with their children and loved ones wait, on average, for seven years before receiving a decision. Skilled workers have to wait an average of four years. Some spouses and children who were supposed to be given priority wait three years—and these are the priority cases.

Instead of accelerating the processing of claims, the government is cutting programs for refugees. The planned cuts to the interim federal health program will deprive some people of health care services. The Conservatives are proud of that. They claim to be champions of the economy, but in reality, they are failing miserably. Many immigrants are still waiting for their foreign degrees and experience to be recognized. The federal government could create tools to recognize foreign credentials and allow these skilled workers to contribute to our economic growth.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates the financial loss created by the failure to recognize foreign credentials to be $4 billion a year. And what about the partisan appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board? Applicants' cases are not all treated the same way, and the criteria are not always applied consistently. Why does the government tolerate such an arbitrary and unfair process? This partisanship does not reflect well on Canada and denies immigrants access to a fair and equitable system.

This government treats immigrants like disposable objects. For example, it increased the number of temporary workers by 200% while allowing employers to decrease these workers' earnings by 15% as compared to the earnings of Canadian workers. Rather than encouraging the long-term integration of immigrants, the government is treating them like second-class citizens.

As the daughter of a refugee, I can say that the contribution of women and men, immigrants, refugees, people who come to start a life here is incredible. On average, newcomers are better educated and have a well-developed business sense. The rate of entrepreneurship among newcomers is very high, and they create jobs and participate in the local economy. We cannot assume that all immigrants are potential criminals. That is managing through fear. Foreign nationals can contribute to Canada both economically and culturally.

Let us also not forget that this country was built by people who came from all four corners of the earth and who chose Canada as their homeland. Why not improve our system to give skilled workers the opportunity to come and work in areas where there is a labour shortage? Instead, the government is cancelling the applications of 280,000 skilled workers, freezing sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents, and continuing to deny visas without reasonable grounds and without the possibility of appeal, thereby preventing families from being reunited for the weddings or funerals of their loved ones.

As New Democrats, we are in favour of a justice and immigration system that condemns violence, criminality and fraud. It is vital that we protect our country against criminals, while treating them fairly. We are prepared to work with the government on bills such as this one, but it must be improved and amended to make it acceptable from a legal standpoint. We believe that some aspects of the bill are constructive, but the traffickers at fault must be punished, not the victims.

Why do the Conservatives not put aside their ideology and make it possible for all of us to work on the bill in committee to make it better? It is possible for Canada to welcome newcomers and fight crime at the same time.

It is possible to do all that at the same time.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for pointing out one of the potential pitfalls in Bill C-43 and in the particular approach to crime that my Conservative colleagues unfortunately take.

I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Obviously, and I will not try to hide the fact, we have had some very tough and sometimes even acrimonious debates, for example concerning minimum sentences for certain crimes, the toughening of certain laws and denying the opportunity for rehabilitation so we can provide alternatives for petty criminals.

I am going to offer my colleague the example of a wonderful organization in Quebec City, L’autre avenue, which helps offenders, adolescents, who have committed minor crimes to stay out of the justice system. In fact, it offers the police an alternative to laying charges, and at the same time this makes it possible to create a system of restorative justice that allows victims to draw comfort from the knowledge that the offender is aware of his wrongdoing and is mending his ways.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou speak, and I thought to myself that this really is a Conservative government that is overreaching itself, that is going a little too far beyond the powers it should have. We see it granting itself discretionary powers in Bills C-31 and C-43, and now in Bill C-44. I know there are a lot of immigrants in my distinguished colleague’s riding, especially in the Beauport area. I am also thinking of them today.

In light of what we can see and what my colleague and his whole team can see on the ground in Beauport—the requests they get from those people—I would like him to tell us a little about how the people caught in red tape see things.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the privilege of speaking in the House about the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

I believe it is very important to be able to discuss with all my colleagues in the House the problems related to the criminality of foreign nationals in Canada. We would be happy to work with the government on the problems related to the appeal process. We are not denying that there may be problems, but we want to work together to establish the facts and find solutions.

But the government has introduced Bill C-43. It is a starting point, but we have some legitimate concerns that some of my colleagues have taken the time to explain in a very clear and concise manner and that give rise to some very valid questions. We must not forget that we are talking about implementing a legal process. The legal process in Canada is based on a long-standing tradition. This tradition and the principles behind the process date back thousands of years.

One of the basic principles, which is not difficult to understand, is that no one can be detained arbitrarily, without reasonable cause. It is a very simple and basic principle. Over centuries it has resulted in a series of definitions that limit the arbitrary decisions of the Crown in order to prevent abuses and to prevent innocent people from becoming victims, even without a conviction, of the judicial system or the police.

One of the measures in Bill C-43 would redefine serious criminality of foreign nationals in order to determine whether or not they have access to the appeal process. The current law establishes the criterion for serious criminality as a sentence of two or more years, a criterion applied in federal and provincial penitentiary systems and also to certain types of crimes and the corresponding sentences.

In changing the prison term to six months or more, Bill C-43 greatly increases the number of people who could be excluded from the appeal process for categories of crimes that—I am not downplaying these crimes or excusing offenders—could be given some latitude so the offenders have options to rehabilitate and re-enter society.

When criminals are sentenced for a crime, we must never forget that they will eventually re-enter society, unless they are sentenced for life or are not successful in the traditional parole process. These cases are very rare, since most people re-enter society. They have lives after serving their sentences. I am not only talking about prison sentences, but also conditional sentences that can last years. With these conditional sentences, if an individual offends again, he could receive a harsher prison sentence or be forced to serve a sentence he did not serve as a result of the conditional sentence.

This entire system applies to all Canadian citizens and is in line with international tradition and consensus, which we must respect.

I will talk about another very important point that has not come up much in this debate. It has to do with Canada's place in the world, which I would define as being a good citizen in the community of nations.

One of the principles of international relations is that a sovereign state is not subject to other states. In other words, all states are treated equally and they have full sovereignty and jurisdiction over their own territory.

Given the consequences of the measures proposed in Bill C-43, we have to wonder if a policy to export more criminals—even our petty criminals—elsewhere in the world would turn us into a bad global citizen. It is very important to take that into account.

I can understand that the government wants to make sure criminals coming from outside Canada are not able to settle in Canada with impunity, and too easily. However, we must also not forget that the bill will affect people who have lived in Canada for a very long time, people who in many cases came here to live when they were very young, at a time when they were entirely dependent on their parents. Those people have grown up in Canada, and because of unfortunate life circumstances, they may have committed a crime and become targeted by this law because they unfortunately do not have Canadian citizenship.

In addition to potentially hurting those people, this two-tier system can also harm a country elsewhere in the world. That country could find itself with a person who was born in the country in question and has committed crimes in Canada, but has never committed a crime in their country of origin. What legitimate basis is there for Canada to offload that burden onto people elsewhere in the world? That is one of the questions we have to ask ourselves.

Most importantly, we must not forget that in Canada, we have very extensive protection, thanks to the privilege we have of living in a very wealthy country, with a justice system, a political system and a social and economic fabric that are highly developed. That creates a safe country that gives all of its citizens the opportunity to find their place and succeed. That is truly not the case elsewhere in the world.

I remember something one of my colleagues said to me. She had had the chance to travel in Latin America. In response to the measures that the Canadian government had taken or was considering, elected representatives there asked her what we thought we were doing by sending people back to them like that, people who had committed crimes in Canada. Did she think they would be able to deal with these people? These are people who might set up much more extensive criminal networks in those countries. If we kept them in Canada, we would have the resources to combat their criminal activities. After getting a slap on the wrist and a sentence, young petty criminals might even see the error of their ways and embark on a process to become good, honest citizens.

We may very well be condemning petty criminals to a life of serious criminality by denying them any chance of having hope in the future.

That is one of the aspects of Bill C-43 we will have to look at.

I very much want to make sure that Canada does not become the equivalent of the 19th century Wild West, when a town was allowed to tar and feather a criminal to export the problem to somewhere else, which did not necessarily solve the problem.

I will be pleased to be able to continue the debate and discussion with my colleagues and see how we can improve Bill C-43.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague on his speech.

He reminded us of the importance of focusing on improving the immigration system to make it faster and more efficient with regard to family reunification, foreign credential recognition, and the situation of temporary foreign workers.

This bill redefines the notion of permanent resident in a fairly specific manner. In my opinion, we need to pay close attention to these profound changes. There has already been Bill C-31, and now there is Bill C-43. I think that the fact that the minister could potentially be given even more discretionary power is clearly a danger that we really need to pay close attention to.

Some stakeholders have pointed out something important about first-time offenders: that they could be deported even though they are not at all familiar with their country of origin.

What can my colleague tell us about this?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. A number of my colleagues have many people in their riding who immigrated to Canada and who think integration is a very important matter.

With regard to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, we are in agreement that our legal system must be efficient and must deport serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens. All parties agree on this public safety issue. However, we are worried about the scope of the bill. It must give some weight to fairness, to the human element and to justice. From this point of view, Bill C-43 poses a problem. The main problem is that it concentrates even more power in the hands of the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the eligibility of a temporary residence applicant.

Questions must be asked about the actions of the current minister. The government's policy is oriented less and less toward immigrant integration, and family reunification is being ignored. This affects me personally. Although I was born in Canada, my parents are of Vietnamese origin. They immigrated to Canada, and a number of people in the Vietnamese community are refugees.

When we look at the direction the government is taking, we realize that they believe integration and reunification are not very important. The government would rather see temporary workers come to Canada. We give them a job, we give them a salary that is lower than what Canadians are entitled to, we say thank you and then we send them back to their home country without really thinking about what they have contributed to Canada.

The bill gives the minister discretionary authority to determine the admissibility of a temporary residence applicant. This is disturbing, as we do not know where the government is going with this. At this point in time, the government does not give priority to people who are asking to come to Canada. We think this is a problem.

There is another major problem: the department will no longer be responsible for reviewing humanitarian considerations. I just mentioned that my parents came from a country where many refugees have come from. Before this bill, the minister had an obligation, at a foreign national's request, to look into the humanitarian circumstances surrounding the situation of a foreign national who was found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality. There are people who live in Vietnam and who are under pressure from the government.

I will read a quote from the report entitled, “Violations of Human Rights in Vietnam” from the Vietnamese Canadian Confederation. It says, “The government is restricting legitimate speech of journalists and bloggers who are advocating the rights through the usage of the Internet, newspaper and radio. There are some prison sentences for broadcasters and people like that”.

If we were to take out the right of the minister to actually look at how we can help them come here, even though they are being attacked in their own country, we would be moving Canada away from what we used to be, which was a country that was really open and that believed in human rights. The fact that we are taking out the fact that the minister can actually look at that is an issue of serious concern.

We have also noted another problem. This one has to do with the discretionary authority that is given to the minister with regard to the exemption for members of a family of a foreign national found to be inadmissible. The minister may ignore the inadmissibility of a member of the family of somebody who is inadmissible on grounds of security if the minister believes this is not detrimental to the national interest.

Here again, we are talking about powers that are placed in the hands of the minister. Here is what we are saying: if it is only one person who decides, if it is only the minister who has to make the decision, in a rather arbitrary way even though the national interest is at stake, if it is the minister who decides about policies and measures and has full authority, whether it is the current minister or the minister in a future government, there is a problem. We are seeing this more and more often under this Conservative government. There really is a trend toward more and more discretionary power, not only in immigration matters, but also on an economic level. More and more frequently, the government is giving power and discretionary authority to one person. This is what is dangerous. They are walking a path that is less and less democratic, less and less transparent, and they are relying more and more on decisions made by one single person. For the NDP, this is worrisome.

I reiterate that it is important to deport foreign criminals. We understand this aspect of the bill. We understand that this is what must happen if we want to protect Canada and ensure that the people who come here deserve to come here. A number of my colleagues opposite and we in the NDP are well aware that in our respective ridings the people who come here are usually good people who contribute to Canada's growth and help make Canada a better country. However, when you isolate them and cast them all as criminals, as this bill does, that is going too far. This is why we want the committee to look at the bill, discuss it and try to find good solutions. We really want to promote integration and have fewer discretionary powers. We have to minimize the stigmas attached to certain immigrant groups.

With regard to fairness and time frames, we know there is a problem. Why does the government not focus on the fact that families are not being reunited? This has come up in many riding offices, including my own, because I represent a riding with a high number of immigrants who are trying to bring their families here, or bring some family members here for a wedding, and this means waiting for a number of months. Nowadays, visas are being denied more and more often. The government is moving in a certain direction: rather than integrating and accepting immigrants, it puts them off and tries to send them back. Apparently, the door is open only for temporary workers who can be sent back home after they have been used for cheap labour, as I mentioned earlier.

The New Democrats know that Canada must have an effective judiciary to deport non-citizen individuals who are serious criminals but there are problems with the immigration system that should be addressed, which I just mentioned. We have serious concerns with the amount of power that would be placed in the hands of the minister.

I have something that came from a group that talks about the problems we have in terms the government not doing enough or basically taking away the right of appeal. That is also a big issue for us in terms of this bill.

The bill grants discretionary power, but more importantly, it takes away the right of appeal. It is very worrying that an individual can be refused access to an appeal process. It is a problem when more rights are being given to the Minister, but the right to appeal is being eliminated.

I will quote Andras Schreck, vice-president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association, who said that the bill raised constitutional issues under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He stated, “I am concerned that there is no right of appeal for those being deported. This is serious injustice in that case and should be heard on their own merit”.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about Bill C-43 to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This bill does have some potential, but it also contains some disturbing elements that, in my opinion, should be more thoroughly examined in committee.

In many ways, these amendments to our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act could lead to abuse of the system and abuse of power. Let us start with the clause that gives the minister more discretionary power. This clause gives the minister—not judges or the courts—the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. In fact, this amendment allows the immigration minister to arbitrarily decide what risk a refugee represents, “if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations”.

Let us now move on to the clause that allows the minister to avoid the responsibility of examining humanitarian grounds in the case of a foreign national who is deemed to be inadmissible. My colleague just spoke about it. In Canada, the government wants to give the immigration minister the opportunity to review people's files to assess whether or not they should be deemed admissible. This would allow the immigration minister to be inflexible with regard to the extraordinary circumstances in which asylum seekers sometimes find themselves.

Let us add to that the clause that amends the definition of “serious criminality”, a clause that uses extreme cases to defend Conservative measures to combat crime. In Bill C-43, the Conservative government is once again introducing the doctrines of its crime agenda by applying them to immigration. Whether we are talking about Bill C-31 or Bill C-43, it is always the same thing with the Conservatives.

This bill penalizes all refugees who arrive in Canada. Instead of defining and setting out a framework for the legal treatment of serious crimes committed by non-citizens, Bill C-43, in its present form, punishes legitimate refugees, as well as the civil society organizations, lawyers and other people who are trying to help them.

Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer in Ottawa, is of the opinion that the amendments to the new law could result in Canada exporting its social problems rather than dealing with the root causes of crime.

The minister said that he wants more power to intervene in order to deport criminals. In my opinion, he should spend less time organizing press conferences that paint a negative picture of newcomers, as in the announcements we saw recently, and instead provide police with the resources they need to protect us from criminals from all walks of life.

Instead of giving far too much vague power to the Minister of Immigration, why do the Conservatives not concentrate on improving the fairness and speed of the immigration system?

There are many immigrants in my riding. They represent almost one-third of the population of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I meet some of them every week when I return to my riding. In fact, I work on many immigration cases. I have one employee who works full-time on these cases because there are so many of them. The applications are straightforward and move along well. At the meetings, the applicants are given all the certificates, are told that they have been accepted and that they must forward their medical certificates. They wait for the certificates, but it takes months and months to get an answer. All the changes at embassies have made things worse.

There are many people who are good citizens and who have every right to come to Canada in the near future. There are problems with family reunification. There are people who want to come here to start businesses. Others want to come here to work and to live in a free country like Canada. But they sometimes have to wait up to 36 months before getting an answer, even if everything is in order. Even if a young 26-year-old man is moving here to be with his 25-year-old wife, even if these people will better Canadian society, even if they are going to work, are educated, are in perfect health and would make model Canadian citizens, they have to wait 36 months.

In my opinion, this type of bill should really address the problems we are currently having: the red tape involved and the slowness of the process. That is not what I am seeing. None of the bills introduced by our Minister of Immigration will solve the problem.

We have seen cuts to the embassies and more restrictions imposed on people who want to come here. The government is accusing immigrants and refugees of being criminals, but it is not coming up with anything to make things better. There is nothing in the bill about people who are here legitimately or about plans to help make the process smoother, because often it is an unpleasant and lengthy process. People anxiously await documents. The family in Canada is anxious as well. I think it would be better to include something to address that.

Hon. members will agree that most people whose application is rejected did not commit a very serious crime. Often the minister will nitpick about minor things and minor technicalities in order to have fewer people come here to Canada.

Most newcomers to Canada would like to be treated fairly and, more often than not, be reunited with their family members.

Bill C-43, as introduced in the House, gives far too much discretionary power to the Minister of Immigration and gives far too little importance to human rights. Nonetheless, as I have already said, it shows that the Conservatives have taken a slight step forward. The bill clarifies that entry to Canada as a result of criminal activities is not enough in and of itself to warrant a determination of inadmissibility. This measure protects the victims who are implicated in serious criminal activity.

The NDP supports measures to help victims of trafficking and the provisions that show respect for and openness toward the victims of trafficking. What is more, the NDP urges the government to support an efficient judicial apparatus that respects human rights.

The new legislation limits the right of a permanent or temporary resident to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, including in cases of extenuating circumstances for those who are sentenced to more than six months in prison and cases of appeals related to humanitarian considerations for those deemed inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality.

Mario Bellissimo, a Toronto lawyer and a member of the executive of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association, said that it is misleading to designate permanent residents as foreigners, that they are casting the net too wide. If people make one mistake—even if it is a non-violent crime—they will be removed.

Mr. Bellissimo believes that Bill C-43 reflects the government's lack of confidence in the immigration tribunal and the Canadian judiciary.

Why should such important cases have to suffer because of the Conservative government's lack of political will?

These changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act require more careful examination. That is why we will send the bill to committee. As I said at the beginning, we think this is a good start and the bill has potential. There are still some immigration issues to resolve, but we must examine them carefully and determine how we will resolve them.

It can be sad when I meet with my constituents. The people who come to my office have often been turned down as refugees. They were asked for proof. I recall one young woman. I will not give her name or say where she is from, but she sought asylum because she had problems with the police in her community. But she was asked to prove that the police were not on her side. These are the kinds of situations that I would like to resolve, because when a person has problems with the police, it is hard to get a certificate saying that the police are causing the problems.

I think that very serious problems should be studied to see how they can be resolved.

In conclusion, the NDP believes that we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal process without violating their rights. Let us remember our Canadian values and work together to build a stronger, fairer Canada. Let us show refugees, temporary residents, permanent residents and immigrants that Canada is a welcoming country, as it has always been.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-43.

In a democracy, due process is the very life blood of our freedoms and the protection of citizens' rights. Political power as such must rest with this Parliament and not with any given minister. Any move that is seen as usurping the power of Parliament has to be, at the very least, questioned in this place.

Bill C-43, I would suggest, is coming on the heels of some very heated criticism of the Conservative government and its proposed refugee reform in Bill C-31. It also cuts at health care, as we hear spoken of in this place. It would seem to us that perhaps the government is trying to change the channel with Bill C-43.

The Conservatives' mantra for the last six years has been pretty much “tough on crime”. To some extent, they have extended that past the point of reality and into a great deal of spin.

When government members speak about the need for Bill C-43, they use some pretty extreme examples of foreign nationals abusing the immigration appeal process, to blow smoke over the fact that this bill is designed to effectively remove checks and balances that permit some flexibility within our system for extraordinary circumstances.

I am a believer in due process and the need for the right to an appeal. Not everybody's story is the same. There is a variety of things that can happen, and I will touch on those as I move forward.

However, I also support the ability for humanitarian and compassionate consideration for those people who, in some terms, might be inadmissible on various grounds: security, humanitarian, international rights violations or organized criminality. There are exceptions to every rule. Many times the whole story needs to be truly evaluated regarding a removal order.

We have had situations in Hamilton. For instance, at least one woman I am aware of, who had a number of children born in Canada, received a removal order. The order was suspended, but had there not been some reconsideration of the facts of that case, a pause for a second look, she and her children would have been forced out of this country. They may, in due course, still be forced to leave, but at least they will have had the benefit of due process and a real evaluation of their situation.

I want to stress that New Democrats do recognize the need for efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for the removal of serious criminals from Canada. Having said that, we do not support closing the door on an appeal process. There has to be balance.

None of us is perfect, nor are the ministers of the government. The reality is that sometimes in some places innocent people, even those not totally innocent, may have been inappropriately moved out of this country too quickly if they did not have the option of appeal.

In my opening remarks I talked about the supremacy of Parliament. We do not support granting the minister the power to unilaterally prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary citizen for up to 36 months based on public policy considerations. This is simply too vague and I would suggest unnecessarily too broad an application of ministerial discretion.

We have respect for the ministers of the government, and we understand that in most instances they are doing their due diligence as they see it. However, granting extraordinary powers is not going to be in the best interest of Canada and the rights of Canadians.

New Democrats stand with newcomers who want the government to focus on making the immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority who have not committed any crimes and who have followed the rules.

Practically every member in this place has stories of people, good souls, who waited in line, filled out the forms and did all of the things that were required of them to gain access to Canada and eventually become a citizen, only to be waiting in suspended animation for years.

We want to be sure that whatever changes are made are fair. When the minister talks about this particular bill, he talks about tough but fair measures and repeatedly emphasizes that it is easy for a non-citizen to avoid deportation. The reality is that one should not commit crimes. That is understandable. That is something we support.

However, Bill C-43 redefines serious criminality for the purpose of access to appeal. I keep coming back to that area of appeal, that area of a last chance. Once a conclusion is made on a final deportation order, Canadians expect us to be absolutely sure of the importance and necessity of removing that person.

I would suggest that this change merits further committee study. We in the NDP will support sending the bill to committee. We understand there is an issue. This is not a circumstance where we are on this side of the House saying that we are just going to oppose blindly. We are going to offer positive suggestions for changes to the bill at committee. We will extend our hand to the government to ensure that whatever bill is put forward will accomplish the job at hand, but protect people's rights in the course of that effort.

The narrowing of circumstances under which humanitarian and compassionate considerations can be taken into account makes the system less flexible. This has already raised concerns from groups advocating for people with mental illnesses, for example, who may not have been in control of themselves at the time a crime was committed. There has to be some consideration for that circumstance.

I have had family members over the years who had various stages of depression or various stages of mental illness. In one case a close relative was medicated for all of her life and was hospitalized for 10 years for a serious situation. At that time she was not in control of who she was. That person by the way was my own mother.

The broader discretionary powers in Bill C-43 would grant the minister the power to issue or revoke a declaration that would prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary citizen for up to 36 months. Many people in the community feel that this would go too far, and that is something for the committee to consider.

It is troubling to note that the Conservatives have marketed the bill almost exclusively on its design to speed up the deportation of serious multiple offenders. Could that be to draw attention away from the fact that Bill C-43 would remove an appeal process and would bestow these new and extraordinary discretionary powers to the minister?

This is not a case where decisions should be made by one person. Very serious decisions take place relative to removing someone from our country. These decisions have an impact on a person's life and family. There are occasions where it is absolutely necessary to remove someone, but we want to be sure that on those occasions the person has had due process and an appeal process. When we reach the conclusion that the person must leave, we can do that in clear conscience, knowing the facts and not relying solely on the judgment of the minister.

I am going to skip through part of my speech because I think my time is just about up.

In 1999, the Australian immigration system underwent a reordering with striking similarities to what is before us today. It is often worthwhile to look at another country, particularly a democracy similar to our own. The mistakes that were made in the Australian case were clear and well documented, and for some reason our minister thinks that Canada ought to repeat them.

Previous to 1999, people were protected against deportation if they had been residents of Australia for 10 years or more. However new amendments gave the minister new powers to dismiss appeals without judicial review. Many of those people had arrived in Australia as infants.

That kind of excessive power is what the NDP is concerned about. We are concerned that the appeal process would be shoved aside and these extraordinary powers would be granted to the minister. That would have a terrible effect on people in the community and their view of what life is like in a free country.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to share my concerns regarding the faster removal of foreign nationals.

Since the founding of this country, Canada has been a land of immigrants.

I, myself, am an immigrant, and I understand the many challenges that new Canadians face in integrating harmoniously into their new country, particularly those who arrive as refugees and who leave their countries in distress. Refugees often experience severe cultural shock. This distress is even more painful when they arrive with their children. Often, they have to learn to speak a new language. They have to find a place to live and a job, and the list goes on.

Immigrants who arrive as permanent residents start out differently because they emigrated by choice. However, once they arrive, they have the same difficulties as refugees in finding a place to live, getting a job and having their foreign credentials recognized. They sometimes end up unemployed and living in the most marginalized neighbourhoods through no fault of their own.

For an immigrant, finding housing is not an easy thing. I know from experience. With a family, it is even worse. Parents do not have their extended family to help them. Often both parents have to work and the children go to school.

The shock is even greater when a young person becomes a delinquent. Under Bill C-43, on reaching adulthood, he becomes an undesirable immigrant who has to leave his adopted country.

I am talking here about young immigrants who arrived in Canada at the age of one, three, four or eight, who grew up here and who went to school here. I am not talking about an immigrant who arrived in Canada at the age of 30 with suspicious thoughts in mind. I am talking about young people who became delinquents here in Canada. They went to school here. They should serve their sentence here. They should reintegrate into society as good citizens here in Canada. They are our responsibility as a society because they grew up here, not elsewhere.

We are talking here about a local problem, not an untraditional export. We are sending these delinquents to their parents' country of origin, a country that they are not necessarily familiar with.

We are talking here about people whom we educated and trained and who became delinquents in Canada.

Most newcomers to Canada are people who will obey the law and never commit a crime. That we know.

The Conservatives should put more effort into ensuring that these people are treated fairly and that they can be reunited with their family members. This would really help these families to integrate harmoniously into their new country and to take care of their children when both parents have to work.

I think about my students from the inner city. How many of them do not have a grandmother? It can really help to have a grandmother taking care of the kids after school, because their parents get home late in the evening. The child comes home with a key, opens the door and is home alone. It is easy to get caught up in the wrong crowd on the way home.

The Canadian justice system has a good reputation throughout the world, and I am concerned that we are sending the wrong signal by hastily deporting criminals without proper grounds.

Will we create more injustice by accelerating the process? Do we risk doubly penalizing people who made a mistake—I am not saying that these are all innocent people—but who paid their debt to society?

I would like to talk about two families in my riding. In both cases, Canadian children are being penalized when their parents are deported for a crime they committed at some point in their lives. In many cases it is a double penalty.

For example, a Colombian-Canadian family was forced to take their young Canadian children—this was in the papers—to a country our government was discouraging people from visiting on our travel warnings site. Another case highlights the importance of being reasonable and carefully studying this bill.

Last week a new case came across my desk. A Canadian citizen is concerned about the situation of one of her employees. This employee is at risk of being deported to Vietnam. This man arrived in Canada as a child. He was 8 years old. His parents died on the ship on the way to Canada. He grew up without his parents. He and his brother outlived them. He is now 40 years old and has six children born in Quebec. He is married to a Canadian.

He spent nearly all of his childhood, teen and adult years here. Around the age of 18, he committed crimes and was punished by the Canadian system, which means that he was tried and he served time in prison for his crimes. He served his sentence.

Being in jail got him thinking and he is now back on the right path. Moreover, for the past number of years, he has been telling the story of his life to other young people, in order to help them also get back on the right path. In doing so, he has helped many young people, and several of them can attest to that. He applied for a pardon two years ago, but things are dragging on.

Recently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada revoked his Canadian citizenship, and a deportation date has already been set. His fate seems already sealed.

He works as the leader of a team specializing in above-ground work related to supply. He is the top-performing team leader in his area. He is a very responsible person and a born entrepreneur. He is resourceful because he can find solutions when conditions are not ideal. He is also very respectful of his employees. Needless to say, he is essential to the company for which he works.

Vietnam is no longer his country. He has been living here for 37 years. His country is Canada. He has six children. One of them has reached the age of majority, but the others are all minors. So this father will be separated from his children. This man will be separated from his wife. He will be separated from his country. This is basically saying that immigrants are second-class citizens.

This example clearly illustrates what we have to be careful about, because Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility to examine humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

Currently, the minister has the obligation, at the request of a foreign national or on his own initiative, to look at the humanitarian and compassionate considerations related to a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds related to security, human rights or international rights violations, or organized crime.

If the minister deems it justified, he may grant an exemption for humanitarian and compassionate considerations, taking into account the interests of a child directly affected. However, the new legislation removes that ministerial responsibility.

Why would the government want to divest the minister of the responsibility to take into consideration the children's best interests when a person faces deportation?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his response.

The well-being of children is very important to me as well. There is a reason why my own bill has to do with youth bullying.

What concerns me about Bill C-43 is that the physical and psychological health of these young people, these children, could be compromised, especially if they arrive as refugees as a result of a dangerous situation in their country of origin. We all know that, for humanitarian reasons, some desperate people arrive here under circumstances that the government would consider unacceptable or even illegal.

What does my NDP colleague think we can do to improve this bill? How can we ensure that these young people and these children will be protected and treated humanely by the Government of Canada?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to speak today on behalf of the people of my riding about Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the short title of which is the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

One of the reasons why I am interested in this subject is because I am an immigrant myself. My father was also an immigrant to the country in which I was born. Before becoming a Canadian citizen, I was a permanent resident. I heard the many very relevant comments of my colleagues in this regard. However, we have not yet heard from the Conservative members, which is unfortunate.

Like my NDP colleagues, I have many reservations about this bill. First, there is the short title: the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. Instead, we should talk about serious foreign criminals.

Bill C-43 refers to two types of people who do not have Canadian citizenship. There are newcomers, who are called “foreign nationals”, and long-time residents with permanent resident status. Permanent residents are in a different category than so-called foreign nationals because, under the bill, permanent residents can be temporary workers or students, for example.

One thing that seems to come back in all the pieces of legislation that have been introduced since the beginning of the 41st Parliament is the constant need to give more discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Frankly, this is a trend that I find very threatening as a citizen. Every time that a power is taken from the courts and judges and given to a minister, we have cause for concern. What is strange is that many reports have demonstrated that the law is not properly and fairly applied because of the lack of resources in the ministry and in the agency in charge of immigration.

One of the problems with this bill is the removal of the right to appeal in certain circumstances. That is dangerous, in my opinion. Obviously, nobody likes long appeal processes that last for years. However, the other extreme, which is, namely, no right to appeal, is certainly no better. I see nothing in this bill to prevent the possibility of abusing the system and this is something I would like the justice committee to be able to modify at the next stage.

This is another immigration bill. That is quite strange, because the government tells anyone who will listen that its priorities are the economy and job creation. As it says, it is focused like a laser on the economy and job creation.

We have a number of reservations. Reports from the Auditor General have uncovered serious problems in the processing of immigration files. Specifically, there have been problems with transparency and with information management at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Auditor General has mentioned that the act is applied randomly and that is very troubling. It is all the more troubling given the Conservatives' current tendency to concentrate decisions more and more in the hands of a few responsible people. But they are reducing the staff tasked with conducting the investigations that lead to the conclusions that allow those decisions to be made.

When you are a member of an immigrant community, as I am, you are inevitably very sensitive to the way in which immigrants are treated when they are convicted of crimes, especially those that the government is now calling serious crimes.

So that brings us back to the famous definition of a “serious criminal“. Previously, it was someone sentenced to more than two years in prison. From now on, it will be someone sentenced to more than six months in prison.

While, in theory, serious criminals are the only ones responsible for their actions, in practice, we see that crimes committed by a handful of people actually spill over onto the entire immigrant community to which those people belong. One of the direct consequences is that, more than anyone, immigrants themselves want a justice system that is effective, but above all fair, a system that ensures that crimes committed by a handful of people, however serious they may be, do not reflect negatively on an entire community that is living and working honestly and taking its place in the economy of this country.

I would also like to refer back to Bill C-31 that was brought before us in the spring and that received royal assent in June. Once again, it is very important not to lump together immigration and crime, not even by association, because too often, even systematically, when immigration and crime are lumped together, the result is xenophobia. Xenophobia is a real cancer for any open society, like ours in Canada, and for any country that has decided to use immigration as a way to replace the generations that have passed on.

Generally speaking, it is risky to examine an immigration issue in the context of a bill that targets a minority made up of foreign criminals among which only a very small number are serious criminals.

Let us now talk about the right of appeal. A number of my colleagues pointed this out. In a process—and this is a concern everyone shares—whenever the opportunity to appeal is removed, the image of justice is damaged and there is a risk of adding to the cynicism of a segment of the population that does not believe in our justice system.

There is a risk to the credibility of the justice system. That is why I am rather critical of this bill. There is a risk of adding to the cynicism of a segment of the population that does not believe in justice or in the justice system.

There has also been much talk about the case of new permanent residents who are awaiting their citizenship. There is also another situation that we do not talk about, namely that of people with dual or multiple citizenship. Quite often, people, immigrants, will not apply for Canadian citizenship. This is not because they do not want to participate in the life of our country but, rather, because they already hold citizenship that they would automatically lose if they took Canadian citizenship. This decision not only has consequences for the person who decides not to take Canadian citizenship, it also has an obvious impact on the children who did not make that choice, who did not have the opportunity to express their views on the fact that their parents decided not to take Canadian citizenship.

I am going to conclude by saying that, for all these reasons, we will support Bill C-43 at second reading. However, given the strong reservations that we have, we will give the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights an opportunity to hear expert testimony that may support the serious concerns raised by my colleagues and myself during this debate.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

The debate on Bill C-43, dealing with the removal of foreign criminals, is one I am particularly interested in. This is another step in the comprehensive reform of our immigration system that the Conservatives are doing their utmost to undertake. As the stakes are high and as the decisions made in this House will have major repercussions on many people's lives, it is essential to thoroughly study the changes proposed in this bill.

Ultimately, this bill proposes to do away with the control mechanisms that allow the immigration system to respond to exceptional circumstances in a flexible way. Powers are being taken out of the system and placed into the hands of the minister, who, more than ever before, will be able to decide unilaterally what is good and what is not good for individuals and for our country.

I have to say that this trend leaves me confused in a number of ways. My first concern is with the concept of serious criminality. At the moment, as we know, someone who is not a Canadian citizen can be sent back to his country of origin if he is convicted of a crime punishable by two years or more in prison. This is intended to keep Canadians safe, while leaving some room to manoeuvre for individuals making a simple mistake. There is a good balance between compassion and public safety, in my opinion. But Bill C-43 would reduce the prison term triggering deportation from Canada from two years to six months. This would considerably broaden the categories of crimes punishable by removal from our country, pure and simple. I believe that this major change requires more thorough study.

Which crimes would henceforth be considered serious enough to justify deportation? Are there not cases in which deportation would be out of proportion to the offence? I feel that we must think about this before we act, given the dramatic consequences of deportation.

I believe that the government is trying to show its muscle here as it has done with various other bills in the past. This is their no-nonsense, tough on crime approach. But have the consequences of that approach been seriously studied?

I would like to quote the president of the Canadian Somali Congress, Ahmed Hussen. In describing the potential consequences of Bill C-43, he said that a good number of the people who are likely to be captured by this new law are first-time offenders who, if given a chance, could reform and change their behaviour.

This means that if we lower the bar from two years to six months, we could end up disproportionately punishing people who, although they made a mistake—it happens—are capable of turning things around. Where is the compassion that helped our country become what it is today? I do not see that in this bill.

I must point out that the immigration minister promoted this bill by using examples of extremely dangerous offenders. Of course we all agree with the idea of preventing dangerous people from walking freely in our streets. I am just as concerned as the minister about the safety of my fellow Canadians. I recognize the need to have an effective justice system in order to deport serious criminals who are not citizens.

However, emotion must not win out over reason in such a complex debate. Blindly and indiscriminately lowering our threshold of tolerance without considering each individual's particular circumstances is not a good solution.

Now let us talk about the vast discretionary powers given to the minister. I cannot support the removal of the appeal process for certain people. Furthermore, I cannot agree with giving the minister unilateral power to prohibit a foreigner from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. That power is much too vast and too vague.

In addition, there is a problem with Bill C-43 that the government does not seem to have thought about. We could end up deporting offenders who came to Canada at a very young age and who no longer have any ties to their country of origin. That has happened before. A young person who immigrates at the age of two with his parents has no memories of his country of origin. He considers himself to be Canadian. His friends are here, as are his social network and family. He has gone to school and worked in his community. When he makes a mistake and commits a crime, however, he does not have the same rights as a citizen and risks being deported.

It is not a fundamentally bad concept. We all understand that serious crimes must be punished severely. That is why the rule regarding a two-year prison sentence is justified. However, by reducing that time frame to six months, we run the risk of deporting people who commit relatively minor crimes to countries they do not know.

The problem I have with this bill is not so much its intention, but rather the means it uses. Protecting society from dangerous criminals is one thing; cracking down indiscriminately and imposing disproportionate punishments on anyone who makes a mistake, no matter how minor, is quite another thing. Does the government realize how difficult it might be for someone to be deported to a country they do not know? I urge the government to seriously consider this question. In short, I would like to say this: let us make the system tougher when it comes to removing criminals if need be, but let us not do so blindly.

Another aspect that really worries me is mental illness. The minister does not say very much about this aspect in his press conferences on the bill, but many convicted criminals have mental health problems.

His bill deprives judges of a great deal of their discretionary power to consider the circumstances in which a crime is committed. I do not think this is a good idea.

According to Michael Bossin, a lawyer who specializes in refugee rights and has extensive expertise in that regard, in many cases, people who have mental illness problems often commit crimes when they are not treated. That is a well-known fact. Many convicted criminals struggle with mental illness.

What do we want as a society? Personally, I think proper treatment should be provided to offenders whenever possible. Locking these people up or sending them to their country of origin only covers up the problem; it does not solve it. It means off-loading the problem onto someone else. That is not what I expect from a country like ours.

People struggling with mental illness must receive care, even if they have committed a crime. This is not being soft; it is being compassionate and wise.

Since Bill C-43 practically ignores this troubling aspect of criminal behaviour, we have a right to question the bill's real intentions.

This leads me to my last point. This reform does not seem to based on any true facts or hard evidence. The government seems to be taking the same approach it used to amend the Criminal Code. It is clamping down without any sense of the outcome.

Can the minister tell us what crimes will henceforth be punishable by deportation? Can he explain why a person with a mental illness would be better off in prison or in his country of origin than at a hospital? Has he calculated the cost of his reform?

The cost associated with Bill C-31, for example, is $34 million. How much will Bill C-43 cost? We do not know.

Nor do we know the current number of deportations that are the result of a conviction, or how many cases involving a deportation order for a serious criminal offence have come before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Without such crucial data, how can we assess the potential repercussions of this reform?

I am convinced that it is possible to prevent non-citizens who commit a serious offence from abusing our appeal process without trampling on their rights. Like the vast majority of newcomers, I would like to have a government that is focused on improving the immigration system to make it faster and fairer.

On top of all the questionable changes that I have already mentioned, this government's modus operandi makes me wonder what its real intentions are.

The Minister of Immigration seems to be contemplating a two-tier system. Just look at the treatment Conrad Black received recently. Mr. Black committed a crime for which he served a sentence abroad, but when he wanted to return to Canada, the minister said he did not want to get involved and that the case should be left in the hands of the officials.

However, through Bill C-43, the minister is now asking for much more freedom of action. He also wants to have more discretionary power in order to intervene in cases involving the deportation and entry of criminals. We cannot always get everything we want in life. We cannot call for an independent system one day and ask for vast discretionary powers the next day.

What is good for Conrad Black has to be good for everyone else. If Mr. Black's file is reviewed by officials, then every file should be. In that sense, the proposed reform in Bill C-43 seems out of touch with reality. Does the minister want judges and officials to enforce the rules, or does he want to decide on everything himself?

This doublespeak does not seem very fair to me and makes me wonder about the minister's true intentions.

I am going to summarize my opinions about Bill C-43.

We all want to be tougher on non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada. However, like many experts, I am concerned about this Conservative bill that increases the minister's arbitrary powers. Judges will have fewer powers, and individuals who are mentally ill will be treated with indifference. The government is making these changes even though the vast majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding individuals who do not commit crimes.

I remember that, in 2006, the Conservative government promised to increase the number of police officers on the streets in our communities. But, for various reasons, the government did not keep its promise. I do not know if that was because the government lacked the will, because it was out of touch with reality or because it had misplaced priorities. What I do know is that the government cannot now make permanent residents pay the price for its inaction. Why not focus once and for all on protecting our communities, rather than on demonizing newcomers? Portraying them as future dangerous offenders, as the Minister of Immigration did in a news conference, is not helping. It looks as though he is trying to divert attention to a certain category of individuals rather than doing something useful.

For all these reasons, I think that Bill C-43 should be studied further in committee. A number of questions and concerns remain unanswered, and the only way to make the right decision is to think more about it.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague was talking about the myths that the Conservatives are spreading about the NDP and our position on this bill. I would really like to make one thing clear.

The NDP recognizes the need for an effective legal system in order to deport serious criminals who are not Canadian citizens. However, the Conservative government is casting far too wide a net with Bill C-43. At the end of the day, this bill targets the majority of newcomers who obey the law and do not commit crimes. That is why the NDP is opposed to this bill.

I would also like to know whether my colleague realizes that this bill attacks the wrong people because, as I mentioned, newcomers who are good people and who obey the law are the ones who will be affected. They are living in fear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-43. As the hon. member said, this is second reading and, at second reading, members express support for a principle, an idea. It is the same, for example, as negotiating in international gatherings. This might even serve as a little lesson for the Conservatives. Initially, we agree on a principle, not on a treaty or a piece of legislation. So let us discuss a principle here.

Certainly, New Democrats recognize the importance that Canadians attach to their security. We are here to protect the security of Canadians. No one will question that, certainly not the government.

I want to work with the government to ensure that no criminal can gain any advantage from a process and that the process remains just, impartial and fair. I should point out that those words are from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I am not inventing Canadian values just for the purposes of my speech. Those are the words used to describe our justice system: just, impartial and fair.

We agree on the principle of holding criminals responsible for their actions, of finding them guilty of the crimes they have committed, and of having them suffer the consequences. But we have to reflect on the subsequent process and the values and principles associated with that process. That is precisely why we are here today. We have to ask ourselves which image we want to project, how we want society and people to perceive our system.

Bill C-43 amends a significant number of items. It is important to highlight them. I will begin by pointing out the items that are on the table for discussion. Then I will provide my opinion and make some suggestions to the government.

First, it is important to say that the bill concentrates more powers into the hands of the minister, as if he did not already have enough by virtue of all the bills he has introduced since the election of the majority government. The current minister is likely the Minister of Immigration with the most power in Canada's entire history. I would not make that claim unless I knew it to be true.

Clearly, we do not want Canadians or the rest of the world to view our system as one in which a minister can personally and subjectively determine the eligibility of a temporary resident applicant, regardless of the criteria. It is true that our image and our system influence Canadians, but I would like to make it clear to the government, which claims to be removing barriers and opening itself up to the world, that it is not just removing our economic barriers, but it is also showing the world Canada's image, our values and our principles.

As my colleague said, it is important for the government to take responsibility, to respect and show people what we have fought for for so many years. This must be preserved and cherished as a national treasure, like our national parks and our history.

I should point out that discretionary powers are not common practice in Canadian democratic traditions.

It is good for a country, for a government, to aspire—I am using the word "aspire" because I would not want to say that the government succeeded—to lead the world in terms of the economy and investment, but why not aspire to lead the world in terms of compassion, democracy, justice and equality? Why not? I have never heard my colleagues say anything about that.

I would really like them to stop eliminating these values and principles, so dear to us all, from their speeches in an effort to divide Canadians through the politics of fear. I will touch on that a little later in my speech.

I have a good example. When Conrad Black, a convicted felon who was sentenced abroad, wanted to return to Canada, the minister was quick to say that he wanted the case to be dealt with independently by independent officers. This was very clear from the beginning, and that is what the minister said. However, now he wants to decide the fate of any individual on Canadian soil. In my opinion, this is a contradiction. Once again, we see that the government wants to create different classes: friends of the Conservatives and everyone else.

The NDP wants justice and equality for everyone. Criteria that apply to one person must apply to everyone. It is not true that there are different classes of citizens, permanent residents and even newcomers to Canada.

Personally, if I could give the minister one piece of advice, it would be to spend less time organizing press conferences that paint a very negative picture of immigrants. Instead, the minister should use these policies and focus his efforts on really protecting us from criminals in our ridings, in our streets.

The minister can declare that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident for a maximum of 36 months if he is of the opinion that it is in the public's interest. Thus, the minister may, at any time, revoke a declaration or shorten that period or whatever.

What are the criteria? The discretionary power in question here is not defined and has no framework at all. There is also no appeal process. To whom is the minister accountable? We know how much the Conservatives love to be irresponsible. They talk about responsible ministers and ministerial responsibility. Yet, instead we see quite the opposite from the Conservative government: irresponsible ministers and ministerial irresponsibility have become the new normal in this country.

We are in favour of the principle: criminals who are found guilty must suffer the consequences. However, we are against giving the minister these discretionary powers. We support equality, democracy and justice.

We see here how different our perspectives are. Has it really come to this? Does the official opposition really have to remind the Canadian government what values Canadians hold dear?

What is so unfortunate about the Conservatives' tactic is that they are using fear and playing on the emotions of Canadians—because I know that Canadians are really very passionate people—to introduce somewhat flawed or sometimes even deeply flawed bills. I think that the Conservatives are going in a truly deplorable direction, and I am very disappointed in their lack of co-operation.

The Conservatives are using prejudices and politics of fear to force Canadians to swallow their far-right policies without saying a word. Has it really come to that? Is the role of the official opposition now to remind the government that it does not rule over its own kingdom, but that it represents Canadians? Is this the role of the opposition now? Are we really seeing these types of far-right policies in a country like Canada? I am very disappointed.

We are talking about an optional appeal process. That is absolutely ridiculous. Has it really come to that? Can the minister really decide whether someone is able to appeal or not?

I personally feel that there is a serious problem with that, especially since the bill also removes the responsibility to consider humanitarian circumstances. For example, what will happen with young children who came here at the age of one? They will be deported to a country whose language and culture they do not know and where they could even be tortured. We have obligations to comply with.

In addition, when we look at the definition of serious crime or serious criminality, we see that there is no definition. We are talking about six months or more, whereas it used to be two months or more.

I am really wondering about the Conservatives' new policies on minimum sentences. We have to think about the image we want our justice system to project. Will people have confidence in our government?

I can assure you that the NDP will never violate the values of democracy, justice and equality that Canadians cherish. We are always going to be there to represent the people.

We are not seeking power because we want to rule over our little kingdom, but rather because we want to change things for the better for Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be as clear as I can.

Does the hon. member feel that, with Bill C-43, the government is using a cannon to kill a fly and that, in so doing, is completely overlooking the imbalances found in this legislation?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the changes to the act. Currently, the minister has the obligation, following a request by a foreign national, to look at the humanitarian aspects of the situation of a foreign national deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or violations of human or international rights.

However, once Bill C-43 comes into force, the minister will no longer be responsible for taking into account humanitarian grounds. Yet in many cases, when individuals make a refugee claim or apply for permanent residence, humanitarian grounds are critical.

Could the Liberal member could tell us what he thinks of the fact that the minister will no longer be responsible for considering humanitarian grounds?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the presentation by my hon. colleague. I would like to congratulate him for his well-thought-out arguments.

I notice that Bill C-43—he can tell me whether or not he agrees with me—moves completely away from what we should be doing. It does focus on an existing problem, but one that only concerns a minority of refugees. It seems that they want to focus on the criminals when much more needs to be done to restore balance to this immigration bill.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this shift, and whether or not he agrees with me.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, concentrates more powers in the hands of the minister by giving him the authority to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. Furthermore, the minister can declare a foreign national to be inadmissible for various reasons. That worries me a bit. This concentration of power in the hands of the minister is a systematic pattern in the Conservatives' bills.

Is my Liberal colleague as concerned as the NDP that this bill and others concentrate more powers in the hands of the minister?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in relation to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, legislation which will impact on the lives of many of my constituents in Mount Royal and which will also have an important impact on the Canadian immigration system overall.

In presenting the bill, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration offered several justifications for the bill, some of which appear reasonable at first glance in their response to admittedly legislative gaps and policy concerns. In this regard the minister began by noting that the bill would “narrow the breadth of the inadmissibility provision for espionage to focus on activities carried out against Canada or that are contrary to the interests of Canada”.

He then continued, noting that the bill “would permit the temporary entry of persons with an inadmissible family member” before adding that the legislation also would provide “express authority for the Minister of Public Safety to grant ministerial relief on the minister's own initiative” and thus would as a whole “strengthen the integrity of the system and protect the safety of Canadians”.

At first glance, all of these are supportable notions. We do not want to exclude those who spied or worked on behalf of allies. We do not want to deny someone entry if he or she is innocent of any wrongdoing but have an inadmissible family member. Nor do we want any convoluted or unclear process for ministerial decision making in this regard. Yet the bill goes above and beyond these simple and seemingly agreeable propositions. Indeed, if the bill only did these three things, it would perhaps even enjoy the unanimous support of the House.

However, the legislation goes beyond this, granting powers to ministers in ways that may breach the charter and changing some of the protections currently afforded by both domestic and international law. In particular, the minister's outline of the two major changes contained in Bill C-43 warrant individualized attention and critique from a juridical perspective. I will seek to organize my remarks around the same points that the minister adduces in support of these changes.

First, the minister noted that “the bill will create a new authority for the Minister of Citizenship who will be able to deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals for up to three years based on public policy considerations”. The problem is that there are no criteria respecting what are public policy considerations. What factors will be considered by the minister? When will the determination be made in the application process? What checks are in place to ensure this provision is neither misused nor abused. Indeed the minister himself acknowledged the delicacy, to use his own term, of this authority and invited colleagues and members of the opposition to suggest such criteria either by way of regulation, amendment, or otherwise support content into this rather vague and elastic term.

As a matter of fundamental fairness, persons must be informed of the case to meet and be allowed to present evidence in their favour. By allowing determination on unknown allegations, with a questionable if not elastic standard, namely that of public policy considerations, we are investing the minister with an authority that could end up being discriminatory and otherwise arbitrary and capricious in its application.

Simply because the minister contends that the power would be used sparingly does not mean that it passes constitutional muster. There must be some check, some appeal, some review of the exercise of authority and I am hopeful at committee this section may be amended, as the minister himself acknowledged and invited such amendment, to at least require notice to applicants of the considerations at issue when this section is invoked.

The second change held out by the minister is that “the bill seeks to lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months”.

It is troubling enough that the government speaks of anything netting longer than a six month sentence as “serious criminality”, let alone the denial of remedial relief in this regard. One who obtains a sentence for making a recording in a movie theatre, an offence which can net a two year sentence under section 432 of the Criminal Code, is hardly one who should be denied access to an appeal of a decision that he or she should be put immediately on a plane back to another country, one where the person may not have been to in years, where the person may have no ties, simply because the minister has ordered the person deported.

In this regard, one must note the title of the bill, which is as prejudicial as it is presumptive and where the very title of the legislation is intended to be probative of the raison d'être of the legislation itself. I am speaking to the reference to swift departure of foreign criminals act.

This is not unlike the approach that was taken with respect to the Safe Streets Act. A title does not in and of itself validate legislation. By characterizing the legislation as being the “faster removal of foreign criminals act”, it does not make it necessarily pass constitutional muster. A title does not make constitutionally suspect legislation valid nor does it transform bad policy into good policy.

The people affected by this bill are permanent residents of our country and newcomers. They came here legally after going through a process that requires, among other things, a criminal background check.

An entire community will be affected by these measures, and it is unacceptable to characterize that community the way this bill does and the way the minister did during his presentation to the House.

New immigrants to Canada are active members of their society. They pay taxes and contribute positively to the country's economy. They must be treated fairly and with respect. Indeed, immigrants, as all members of the House know, play an extremely important role in our country's history. They are an integral part of our cherished multicultural mosaic. On a personal note, I am extremely proud to be able to represent one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in the country.

Simply put, the government has not presented the House with any evidence of a higher level of criminality among immigrants to Canada as compared to citizens. Nor has it presented evidence that somehow a sentence of six months plus a day is in and of itself “serious criminality”.

While my colleagues have listed some of the offences for which one might get a sentence of longer than six months, offences which a reasonable person would hardly view as serious, the bigger problem is that the assumption is that a sentence necessarily reflects severity. In a period when the government is intent on ushering in new and longer mandatory minimum sentences, it can hardly be said in the Canadian justice system that there is necessarily a correlation between the length of a sentence imposed by a judge and the severity, let alone the evil of the act itself.

There is a related note here that must be made with regard to sentencing. The minister noted:

—we have noticed across the country that courts are often using two years less a day to penalize individuals for their crime. At the same time it obviously changes the aspect of that criminal conviction, because it is less than two years, and therefore the scope of the current legislation does not allow us to pursue those individuals for the purpose of getting them out of the country and deporting them.

The suggestion is that judges somehow sentence offenders to two years less a day so that one would not be deported under the current statutory scheme and that it is in fact the intention of the judiciary itself in these regards. However, the truth of the matter is that two years is a dividing line between offences served in provincial versus federal institutions.

In other words, a judge is not sentencing someone to two years less a day because he or she feels the offender should not be deported. That is not something for the judiciary to consider in a criminal case. Rather the two years less a day sentence allows for the criminal to be incarcerated in a provincial rather than a federal penitentiary.

Indeed, in this regard I would invite the government to submit any evidence it has that any judge has ever taken into account deportation risk in assessing the sentences. It is not a factor under the Criminal Code and surely the government would appeal such a verdict should it have been handed down in that manner. It is simply irresponsible to impute to the judiciary a motive in sentencing where there is no evidence in fact or in law that it has indeed adopted this as its modus operandi.

Returning to the bill before us, the premise is that we must remove foreign criminals faster. Yet, as I noted, the foreign criminals at issue here are really permanent residents and new Canadians. Their crimes may not be all that serious. If the government seeks to ascribe to them the level of “serious criminality”, they would be deprived of a remedy to challenge the summary deportations themselves.

When we think of serious criminality, we think of murder, sexual assault and other violent acts. I do not dispute that there are some committing these despicable acts who may be immigrants to Canada, as well as citizens committing such crime. However, the most serious of all crimes, mainly war crimes, crimes against humanity, let alone that unspeakable crime of genocide, is not something we see addressed in this proposed statute. I believe this point warrants some discussion in this matter.

In this regard, may I turn my attention to the war crimes and crimes against humanity program.

Since its inception in 1997, the war crimes program has provided a means of prosecuting international crimes domestically, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which underpins our war crimes legislation and the implementation of our international treaty obligations.

In doing so, Canada sends a powerful message that not only will our country not serve as a base or sanctuary for war criminals but such war criminals are on notice that they will enjoy neither immunity nor impunity for their international criminality, which transcends borders and jurisdictions.

It is regrettable that the funding for this program has not changed since its inception in 1997. At a time when the government is talking about getting tough on foreign criminals, it is not, regrettably, addressing the problem of foreign war criminals here in Canada and ensuring that they are brought to justice here in Canada.

Rather, we see the problem with the bill now magnified in this regard to how the government treats war criminals, namely through their wholesale deportation. Yet this is not an appropriate alternative to domestic prosecution for war criminals, for they may never face justice in their home countries. Indeed, their home governments may provide protection from prosecution and they may even be rewarded for their criminality. It is our responsibility, both domestically and under international law, to break this cycle of impunity.

At a time when the government purports to be concerned with foreign criminals who enter our country, should this not be the time to reinvigorate the support and funding provided for the war crimes and crimes against humanity program?

These are the real foreign criminals, not Canadian permanent residents. For all the government has claimed that the opposition is soft on crime, why are the Conservatives arguably so soft on war criminals and war crimes?

Again, the point here is that deportation and removal are not necessarily solutions to the problem at hand, and in some cases, returning someone to their country of origin may make things worse.

Another flaw of the bill is that it does not make clear the Canadian obligation, as affirmed by our courts again and again, not to deport to situations of torture or terror. Problematic as it may be to return a permanent resident to a country with which he or she may not have had any contact for years and may no longer have any ties, it is much more problematic in cases of people who came as refugees to Canada before claiming their permanent residency status.

In this regard the removal of recourse to the immigration appeal division is particularly problematic. Indeed, it should be noted that we hold specific international legal obligations under the UN Convention against Torture, to which Canada is a signatory. Article 3 of that convention states:

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

While I understand the concern and desire to limit paperwork and resources devoted to claims that will not succeed and I understand the concern that protracted levels of appeal at times burden our system, efficiency cannot replace fundamental rights, particularly those that are protected by treaty. Indeed, the rights at stake here are of the utmost, critical importance.

For permanent residents, such as those who came here as children and for whom Canada may be the only country they have ever known, the decision to return them could prove fatal. Decisions in this regard must not be made lightly, require a full and fair consideration of the facts and cannot be rushed in the interest of political expediency, nor can they ignore the very real dangers that exist.

Lest anyone question whether this is a very serious risk, look at what happened just last week in the case of Fatemeh Derakhshandeh Tosarvandan. While the Canada Border Services Agency has agreed to look at new evidence into the case of her failed refugee claim, there was a brief point where it appeared Canada would send this refugee claimant back to Iran, even though she could face death by stoning.

After repeated pleas by her lawyers and two scheduled deportations that were subsequently cancelled, officials finally notified her lawyer that they would grant her a pre-removal risk assessment.

These cases arise and it must be clear that in all circumstances that Canada, as a matter of law and policy, will not deport to torture or terror which, as the courts have also affirmed, includes deportation to the death penalty in any form.

To conclude my remarks in the time remaining, we all support the idea of creating an efficient and effective immigration process. We support what the minister has said about supporting the integrity of the process itself, but this must not come at the expense of our democratic values, our constitutional rights or international legal obligations. Our government must be open and accountable. Ministerial discretion in a democracy must be exercised with transparency, accountability, in compliance with the Constitution and not shielded by elastic and amorphous terms such as public policy considerations.

The government has yet to justify the primary legislative changes accomplished through the bill in any compelling way. Its advancement only continues to create prejudicial fallout for immigrants, and also prejudicial fallout with respect to the imputations to the judiciary of prejudicial decision-making, let alone breaches of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am all for immigration reform. Some of the minister's reforms have been welcome. In past Parliaments I have stood with my Liberal colleagues in supporting some immigration legislation offered by the Conservatives, yet this legislation in its present form is constitutionally suspect. It will invite constitutional challenges at the taxpayers' expense as the government seeks to advance that which breaches constitutional requirements for procedural fairness on the one hand and respect for our international obligations on the other.

What is enshrined in the charter and the related duty of procedural fairness are not merely privileges. They are rights that deserve protection and promotion, and the Canadian Parliament should be at the forefront of those seeking such protection for the benefit of all Canadians.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Well, you're in the chair, so I'll leave it. Just to keep in mind that I will bring this back up...your asking of very specific questions, as you said, and that you outlined, “What do you think of Bill C-43?” We won't need to have these two gentlemen back, then, for Bill C-43, if you're going to ask them questions about Bill C-43.

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

You know, as all of us at this committee know, that we will be studying Bill C-43 as soon as next week, potentially, in fact, if all things go well. No, sorry—it's the week when we come back after Thanksgiving.

I'm not sure why, when we're studying security, you would be specifically asking about a bill that you know is going to be coming before the committee. You'll be able to actually—potentially—invite Mr. Salter or Mr. Edelmann back to ask these questions.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you very much.

I'm taking the next round of questions, just so everybody knows.

My first question is directed to you, Peter.

On the broad subject of immigration and security, you may be aware that we're now considering Bill C-43 in the House, which the government contends will lead to the faster deportation of non-citizens who commit serious crimes.

On our side of the House, we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens. We have made it clear that we are willing to work with the government to make sure our communities are safe and that criminals of all backgrounds cannot abuse our appeal process.

That being said, we have some serious concerns with the legislation before the House. We are concerned that it doesn't strike the right balance between rights and security. We are also very concerned that it is concentrating even more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister.

As an expert in immigration law, I wonder if you could give your general impression of Bill C-43.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for his kind comments about co-operation. It is true that we have been working together in a co-operative fashion on the bills he mentioned. In fact, without utilizing time allocation, after nine days of co-operative debate on things that everybody agrees on, we have been able to have one vote on one bill at one stage. If members wonder why it is difficult to get things done, that indicates why: we all agree on something and it still takes nine days to get one bill to one vote at one stage.

Anyway, this afternoon, we will continue with our helping families in need week with second reading debate on Bill C-44, which will undertake several steps to help hard-working Canadian parents in times of need.

Based on discussions, I expect that we will finish debating Bill C-44 today. If so, I will then call Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), tomorrow.

I understand that there is interest in all corners of the House to see this legislation referred to committee quickly. I hope so, because I believe that all parties want it passed. We may be able to make that happen.

Next week we are going to focus on making our streets and communities even safer. From Wednesday through Friday we will consider second reading of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which will firmly show that Parliament does not tolerate criminals and fraudsters abusing Canadian generosity.

On Monday and Tuesday, we shall have the third and fourth allotted days. Both days will go to the official opposition. I am eagerly waiting to see what we debate those days. Perhaps the New Democrats will use the opportunity to lay out their details for a $21 billion carbon tax which would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Perhaps I should correct the record; it would be a $21.5 billion carbon tax. I know there are some in the press gallery who want us to be precise about that.

If we have a hard-working, productive and orderly week in the House which sees debates on Bill C-44, Bill C-21 and Bill C-43 finish early, the House will also consider second reading of Bill C-37, the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act, which the official opposition supports, despite debating it for four days last week; Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member for Winnipeg North. Let me try to answer the last part of his question first, that being is the whole aspect of detention.

The member is correct. He and I both travelled to Vancouver, Laval and also Rexdale, Toronto, to view the detention facilities at all three of those locations.

He mentions Bill C-31. Part of the reason we actually did the tour was based on a number of witnesses called for by the official opposition, but also by his party, who came forward with respect to the study on the safety and security of our borders that the committee is currently working on. Witness after witness from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party came forward and made all kinds of overtures about what they felt the conditions of the detention facilities were.

I think I have the support of the member for Winnipeg North on this. We looked at all three facilities. None of the facilities are similar in nature in terms of how they are organized and run. However, I know we would both agree that the treatment of the individuals who were under detention at those facilities is far superior than any one of their witnesses was prepared to commit and admit to at committee. Therefore, I have a deep appreciation for our ability to go on the tour of these three facilities to understand what they were all about and to see the treatment of those individuals who were detained there for specific reasons.

The member mentioned the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady. What happens about two or perhaps three times every decade is that ships come in from offshore because smugglers believe they can take advantage of the people who are on those ships. They force them to pay enormous, ridiculous amounts of money to stuff them onto these boats and then bring them to Canada because we had the reputation of having a system that was broken with respect to refugees. The ships would come here because it was believed to be so easy. The smugglers told the people on these ships to claim refugee status in Canada and that they would be automatically granted refugee status. Those people, who wouldn't have identification, were smuggled onto these ships and brought across. It was very unsafe. The member has seen these ships. He knows how unsafe they are.

I wish that when the Liberal Party was in power for 13 years and had the opportunity, it would have changed the immigration system and addressed the issue of those who are claiming refugee status here. The refugee system was broken.

Both Bill C-11 and Bill C-31 get at the very heart of what the problem is. That is that over 60% of those who apply for refugee status in Canada are either bogus claims, withdraw their claims or go back to their country of origin because they had learned that this was a system they could take advantage of.

I wish we would have had the Liberals' support at committee and with the bills that we passed in this legislature. We have Bill C-43 coming up to get rid of foreign criminals in this country. I hope the member will consider supporting that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have two quick comments. One is for Nathalie. It is with regard to Bill C-43, which I'm sure she's quite familiar with. I'd be very much interested in hearing some of her thoughts in regard to that particular bill. It may not be this afternoon, but maybe we could provide an opportunity to get your understanding of that bill.

Mr. Waldman, to continue with what you just referred to, the bail project and the electronic monitoring are wonderful things. The problem with the bail project is that it only applies in Ontario. Do you think there is something we should be doing in Ottawa to ensure that B.C. and Quebec have similar programs?

You have 100% confidence in the bail project as an alternative to detention, and you see a role for electronic monitoring. Is that correct?

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed feelings that I take part in this discussion on Bill C-43. I say mixed feelings because there is definitely an issue here worth discussing and finding a solution to, but this is no way to approach it.

I am here, speaking in the House, because of the voters of Trois-Rivières. We can all agree that Trois-Rivières is not exactly an immigration gateway to Canada. Imagine my surprise in the weeks following my election when I saw the plurality of the cultural communities in Trois-Rivières, when I spoke with the people of those communities and recognized the wealth of diversity. I also recognized a need to listen to one another, in order to try to understand each other, given our respective cultural baggage.

I realized that there should be an individualized approach to immigration for each of the people that I met with in my riding office. There is no doubt that, of all the files that I have dealt with in Trois-Rivières since I was elected, those related to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have been the most complex. It seems that this goes without saying, given the nature of the subject at hand. As a result, I have a very hard time when someone tries to present a simple or even simplistic solution to a complex problem involving immigration.

Thus, to support Bill C-43 as it stands would require me to turn my back on core values that I cannot deny. It is also asking me to take a great leap of faith to vote to send this bill to committee in the hopes that major amendments will be made to it, particularly given the number of amendments that were accepted in the case of a bill as large and important as Bill C-38. If the past is any indication, there is not much there to reassure me.

However, with all due respect for parliamentarianism, I must still place some hope in committee work and in the fact that the committee could considerably improve a bill that contains certain elements that I think are essential and could do away with others that are simply not consistent with the values held by most Canadians.

For the sake of time, I will start with my biggest concern. If I have any time left, I will end with the points on which both sides of the House could come to an agreement. I hope that this approach will be constructive and will help to set the tone for the work that members of this committee will do.

My first concern is that the vision of the Conservatives' bill is completely black and white. Bill C-43 is one of many Conservative bills that, as I said earlier, proposes a simple solution to a complex problem. With regard to the bill we are discussing this afternoon, there seem to be good people and bad people but very rarely good people who have given in to a moment of weakness and are not necessarily destined for a life of crime, but whom the Conservatives want to force to leave the country.

The picture before us is, once again, presented only in black and white, with almost no shades of grey. Yet it is difficult to describe reality without using all shades of grey. We simply have to think back to black and white television, for those who are my age, anyway. If there had been no shades of grey, we would not have seen much of anything. Very few things, particularly concerning immigration, correspond to this dualistic view of the world. Any search for consensus must look at solutions that take into account a broader range of shades of grey, which will allow us to consider every possible situation.

Bill C-43 also presents a risk of considerable abuse.

Let us first talk about the powers that would be granted to the minister. I must point out that this is not a question of examining the personality of the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, but rather of the powers that could be exercised by any individual who is in charge of that rather complex department.

Usually, in famous western movies, there are good guys and bad guys, and there is usually a sheriff to mediate the conflict. Well, in this case, it seems that the sheriff is none other than the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. His discretionary power will increase, while the criteria used to achieve justice seem to be decreasing.

The minister would thus have the authority needed to rule on the admissibility of temporary resident applicants. That means that the minister could rule that the foreign national is inadmissible for up to 36 months, if he believes that it is in the public interest.

I will digress for a moment. First, the verb “to believe” introduces a grey area or value judgment. It is hard to imagine that the verb to believe refers to objective criteria. The belief might vary from one minister to the next. We know that cabinet shuffles, even changes in government, are legion in our democratic system.

Bill C-43 does not define public interest. What is really in the public interest and allows the minister to determine that it would be best to deport a person?

What is more, Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility, even the obligation, to examine the humanitarian circumstances of the foreign national who is deemed inadmissible for security reasons. That again is a grey area and is difficult to define.

I believe that the minister in charge of such a department must be the instance of last resort. He must rise above the fray and not be a part of the decision-making machine, and not have a penchant for ideology.

Furthermore, the bill changes the definition of what is considered to be “serious criminality”. This will be a particularly important matter to be debated in committee. What corresponds to the NDP or Conservative view of what we might term “serious criminality”, and will also garner the broadest consensus among Canadians when it is time to describe and judge what constitutes “serious criminality”?

Previously, a serious criminal was someone given a sentence of two or more years, which was the logical connection to the judge's reasoning when judging a crime. If a crime was deemed to be punishable with a sentence of two years or more, the criterion of “serious criminality” was met.

By changing this criterion from two years or more to six months or more, will judges be asked to change how they interpret the law and make their rulings? Absolutely not. It means that we are opening the door to including all sorts of crimes that, under the old law, would not have been viewed as “serious criminality” and that detractors would consider to be grounds for deportation.

We can well imagine that judges will not change their rulings and that a much larger number of cases may find their way into the new process set out by Bill C-43.

What about the right to an appeal process? It is no longer an option, even for someone given a six-month sentence for a crime that most Canadians would not consider a real threat to public safety.

For example, imagine an immigrant with an incurable illness that causes unbearable pain. He decides to seek relief by discreetly growing five or six pot plants at home. He is not selling drugs. While some parliamentarians are considering the possibility of legalizing marijuana, for just such a situation, that person could be found guilty of a serious crime and be deported to a country that he does not know well enough culturally to live in safely and soundly. He may have come to Canada as a child. Canada could be his only refuge and ours the only culture he has ever known.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning and afternoon, I listened closely to my colleagues' remarks on Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I want to make one thing clear. This bill would affect a very small percentage of permanent residents: those who abuse our immigration system. During this debate, my Conservative colleagues referred to some extreme cases to support their argument. That was a diversionary tactic because the vast majority of new immigrants commit no crimes and follow the rules.

My constituents want the government to focus on improving the immigration system to make it faster and fairer, something this government has failed to do since coming to power.

The NDP will support this bill at second reading so that the committee can take a closer look at it. However, as we have seen during today's debate, my caucus has some major reservations when it comes to this bill.

Before I say more about the bill, I would like to reiterate that it is one aspect of this government's piecemeal approach to immigration. Earlier this session, the government introduced Bill C-31, which, as we know, creates two classes of refugees and completely undermines refugees' rights.

You will recall that this government also reduced refugee health care services, which means that many of them will not have access to the health services they need. Is that the best way to treat people who often are penniless and have been traumatized? I think not.

Many doctors, organizations and groups of experts, including the Canadian Paediatric Society, oppose the proposed changes that will limit access to primary and preventative health care for some of the most vulnerable children and adolescents in Canada. These changes deprive a large number of children of treatments or doctor's visits if their parents do not have money to pay for the health services and medications. This is beneath a civilized country such as Canada. We must take care of our refugees.

When I travel abroad, I am very proud to wear the Canadian flag. Why? I am proud because, to other countries, Canada represents a model of diplomacy, a fair country, a humanitarian country where people are treated with dignity and fairness, no matter where they come from. However, this Prime Minister's Conservatives are transforming this country by dismantling, among other things, our immigration system.

Among other things, this bill takes away the minister's responsibility to examine the humanitarian circumstances. At present, the minister is required, at the request of a foreign national, to examine the humanitarian circumstances of the foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international human rights violations, or organized criminality. If the minister deems it is justified, an exemption for humanitarian reasons may be granted, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected. Unfortunately, this will no longer be the case if the bill is passed.

In addition to undermining our humanitarian reputation, the Conservatives are promoting the mentality of “them against us”. However, in our communities, the line between them and us is not black and white. With this bill, we run the risk of removing people who arrived at a very young age with their parents, have spent their lives in Canada, and cannot call anywhere else their home. They may not be Canadian citizens, but these people have contributed to our communities, have paid their taxes and are part of our society.

This Conservative government's approach is simply to deport people. It is like discarding these people without any concern for their well-being.

I would like to read some comments from Ahmed Hussen, the president of the Canadian Somali Congress, who thinks that the new bill will result in a huge increase in the number of young male immigrants who are deported without appeal:

The net will be cast wider and it will capture even more people. One big mistake on the part of these young men could see them sent to a dangerous place they know nothing about.

He also said:

For the people that are likely to be captured by this new law, we feel that a good number of them are first-time offenders who, if given a chance, would most likely reform and change their behaviour.

Why does this government not concentrate its efforts on increasing front-line immigration services? Why is the Conservative government eliminating the jobs of public servants who process immigration applications? Why is the government refusing to take action to facilitate family reunification? Instead of cutting services for Canadians, this government should give our immigration system the tools it needs to function.

Now let us talk about Bill C-43, which we are debating right now. There are two aspects of the bill that concern me. First, this bill puts even more powers into the hands of the minister, giving him authority over the admissibility of applicants for temporary residence. The minister can declare that a foreigner is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. This creates a very dangerous grey area. What constitutes public policy? That is not clear in this bill.

The Conservatives are already wary of newcomers, and they have a tendency towards repression, so I am not sure we should be giving more discretionary powers to the government, and to this Conservative government in particular.

My other concern about this bill is that it changes the definition of “serious criminality” with respect to appealing a determination of inadmissibility. In the past, a conviction in Canada that carried a sentence of two or more years would lead to the automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I can give some examples. If this bill passes, we could deport people who have six marijuana plants, for example, since they could be subject to a six-month sentence. These are not people who have committed violent or serious crimes and who deserve to be punished.

This bill also targets people with mental illness, who are already overrepresented in our justice system. Many individuals have spoken out against this bill because of that. John Nash, an immigration and refugee lawyer with South Ottawa Community Legal Services, said that these changes will affect many people with psychiatric problems. He said that many people with mental illness end up in the criminal justice system. Those people could be deported too.

Instead of focusing on job creation, the Conservatives are attacking the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of focusing on job creation, the Conservatives are attacking unemployed workers by forcing employment insurance beneficiaries to accept jobs that they are overqualified for and that do not pay as well as their previous jobs. Instead of doing something about climate change, this government has its head in the sand, which will hurt future generations. Instead of improving our immigration system to deal with applications quickly, the government is portraying all immigrants as criminals.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient legal system that can deport serious criminals who are not citizens. However, the Conservatives' proposed solutions are not balanced and could have devastating consequences in addition to politicizing our immigration system.

Our immigration system is broken. Just read the Auditor General of Canada's reports, which show that Canadians are waiting longer to bring their relatives to Canada and that lineups are getting longer.

I hope that once we are together in committee, my Conservative colleagues will take the NDP's concerns regarding Bill C-43 into account and accept our proposals.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will share my time with my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

On June 20, 2012, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism held a press conference to introduce Bill C-43, which has some provisions for the faster removal of foreign criminals to their country of origin.

This bill would allow for the faster deportation of foreigners and permanent residents who are convicted of a serious crime in Canada or abroad, and it would refuse them access to the Immigration Appeal Division. To that end, the bill redefines “serious criminality” as being any crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least six months, instead of the period of two years that is currently found in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Furthermore, with Bill C-43, the government is asking this House to once again grant increased and unlimited discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, including the power to agree or refuse to grant temporary resident status to an individual for a maximum period of 36 months based on public policy considerations, without specifying or defining “public policy”.

Finally, Bill C-43 provides for imposing additional, more stringent conditions with regard to permanent residence for foreign nationals who are deemed inadmissible on security grounds. It also proposes eliminating the power granted to the minister to review a humanitarian application from a foreign national who is inadmissible to Canada when there is reason to believe that he has been involved in the crimes described in section 34 and subsequent sections of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The security of Canadians has always been and is still a priority for New Democrats. Without handing the government a blank cheque, the NDP believes it is possible to work with the government to prevent foreign nationals who have been involved in serious crimes from using stalling tactics successfully to delay their deportation from Canada.

However, because Canada enforces the rule of law, the NDP would like to remind this House that measures to enforce our legislation must never violate the principle of the rule of law, the national obligations entered into by Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights agreements. Finally, measures to enforce our legislation must not violate the principles of fundamental justice when they involve the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

In a number of cases in which the government has been unsuccessful, our courts have consistently reiterated the importance, in the words of Justice Zinn of the Federal Court, of “the balancing necessary in a constitutional democracy that follows the rule of law.” They have repeatedly held that foreign nationals on Canadian territory have the right to claim the legal and judicial guarantees available under our legislation. The Singh decision, handed down by our Supreme Court, illustrates this principle.

In that case, the Supreme Court informed the government that asylum seekers who are in Canada are entitled to fundamental justice when their normal or accelerated deportation to another country means they are likely to be tortured or exposed to threats to their life, their freedom or their safety. In another case, the Supreme Court held that, in a democracy, not every response is available.

Unfortunately, when judges hand down decisions concerning asylum seekers, decisions that frustrate the Conservatives' political imperatives, they are subject to virulent attacks by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who accuses them, as he did on February 11, 2011, of acting on a whim, or perhaps in a fit of misguided magnanimity. It is unacceptable to question the independence of our judges when they refuse to facilitate the achievement of the Conservatives' political aims or when they refuse to base their decisions on elements other than legal, justice and equity considerations.

In his speech, the minister complained about judges who, in his view, have been preventing him from deporting a foreign criminal for six years. He publicly discredited the guardian of the law and the rule of law, that is, the judiciary, by suspecting Canadian judges of frequently handing down prison terms of less than two years for the sole purpose of blocking the criminal's rapid deportation.

The minister also attacks Canadian judges every time they reverse or overturn the careful decisions he says are made by the highly trained public servants on administrative tribunals and even other judges.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism's criticisms of Canadian judges lead us to believe that, for the Conservatives, decisions regarding the removal of foreign criminals must be made without the possibility of appeal regardless of who makes the decision and the irregularities involved. For the Conservatives, judges who rule on cases involving the removal of foreign criminals must make their decisions based on the Conservatives' political and ideological imperatives rather than on the rule of law. That is unacceptable.

Such a vision of justice is not that of a country in which the rule of law prevails and where there is a permanent separation of power among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary in order to prevent abuse and maintain constitutional order. The lord that Justice Zinn cites found this tension to be acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. Lord Woolf concludes by saying that the tension is a necessary consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

As set out in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada is founded on the rule of law. According to Justice Zinn: “The rule of law provides that the Government and all who exercise power as a part of the Government are bound to exercise that power in compliance with existing laws.”

The courts are the institutions that the Constitution charged with ensuring that the government's decisions, including decisions regarding the removal of foreign criminals, are being made in compliance with the existing laws.

While ensuring that the safety of Canadians is not jeopardized, the NDP is reaffirming its concern and its willingness to place more emphasis on improving the equality and speed of the immigration system for the majority of people who have not committed any crimes and who follow the rules.

Clearly, there is a need to protect the integrity of our immigration system. This is especially true since many workers in the area of refugee rights, in particular members of the Canadian Council for Refugees, have been calling for a reform of the system for many years.

The flaws in our immigration system are well known. However, unfortunately, the Conservatives are using a small number of high profile cases—usually involving permanent residents who were charged with serious crimes and then used the appeal process to delay their deportation—to justify the need to have a faster process for deporting foreign criminals who are living in Canada. The minister's office describes the bill as tough but fair, and repeats that it is easy for non-citizens to avoid deportation: all they have to do is not commit any crimes.

The current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains clear provisions that enable law enforcement authorities to be tough on criminals who try to abuse our immigration system. For example, it sets out that foreigners found guilty of crimes must be deported from Canada immediately, and it recognizes the detention authority of officials.

Officials may detain individuals without a warrant and arrest individuals who cannot produce identification.

Furthermore, there are more categories of people who are inadmissible to Canada than under the previous Immigration Act of 1985. Under the IRPA, foreigners may be deemed inadmissible for a number of reasons, including under section 34, for being a danger to security, section 35, for jeopardizing human rights, section 36, for acts of serious criminality or, section 37, for being involved in organized crime, section 40, for misrepresentation, and for terrorist acts.

Under section 52 of the act, individuals facing a deportation order must leave Canada immediately and never return.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act individuals cannot appeal a removal order for jeopardizing security, for human or international human rights violations, or for organized criminality. The Act denies them the right to have the decision reviewed. Smugglers are subject to particularly deterrent sentences.

Instead of making the necessary corrections to make their department run smoothly, the Conservatives are trying to circumvent all control, even the control of judges.

We demand that the individuals affected have the opportunity to go before a judge to contest expedited removals order concerning them.

The application of removal measures must respect the balance between the need to safeguard Canadians and national and international human rights obligations. A measure—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what I thought was a good question. I followed it up and suggested that the minister might even want to take note of it and possibly respond to it. I then asked a question of a New Democratic member, because we have not seen Conservative members asking questions or making presentations on Bill C-43. It is an important question and for whatever reason the minister has not been successful in answering it. I posed the question in some of the briefings that I received and again I did not receive an answer.

The question in essence goes back to the whole issue of a visitor's visa. Canadian Immigration officers around the world have the responsibility of deciding and distributing visitor visas to individuals who want to come to Canada for a visit. Now one of the requirements is that If a family member wants to come to Canada and another member of that family has been part of an organized gang, that person will be disqualified from coming to Canada.

Therefore, the question that I think stands to reason is this. Are immigration officers going to have the additional responsibility of reviewing this legislation and if implemented, and I have no doubt it will be, are significant resources going to be added to the immigration offices around the world? Is that not a fair question? Should the minister not answer that question before the bill goes to committee?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we share the government's concern about serious crimes committed by individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

As a result of this principle, we support this bill at second reading. However, we still have some concerns about this bill, which we feel casts too wide a net over immigrants.

I would like to use a simple analogy to explain the situation to Canadians watching today. When I was young, one of Greenpeace's big campaigns in the 1980s was to save the dolphins. The problem at the time was that tuna fishers were catching dolphins in their nets because the nets were too big. As a result of a campaign against this action and pressure on the processing companies, they changed their way of doing things. That is why we see the “Dolphin Friendly” logo on cans of tuna.

I hope that, as a result of the concerns we voice about this bill and the work done in committee, the Conservatives will make sensible changes to improve this bill so that it becomes “Immigrant Friendly.”

With this story, I want to illustrate two things: first, Bill C-43 is a big net, perhaps too big, and in our desire to catch criminals, innocent immigrants are going to get caught in this large net and get hurt in the process. We have some suggestions for improving this bill.

Like most Canadians, we are concerned about criminals and crime, but we want to proceed responsibly and not engage in demagoguery, as the members on the government side often do.

Before explaining what we want to improve, I would like to point out that the opposition's priorities are the economy and the quality of services, such as health care, provided to Canadians. It is sad to see the government fuel stereotypes by focusing on bills that target immigrants and establishing a link between criminal behaviour and immigration.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, the vast majority of immigrants are honest. They work hard if we let them.

I would also like to mention that crime is a complex process. One of the causes of criminal behaviour is poverty, and not a person's country of origin.

We know that, historically, immigrants have often been targeted and seen as a threat to the well-being of a population during periods of economic crisis.

I hope that the government is not trying to fuel stereotypes. Crime is not really widespread in the immigrant communities, but the government is dwelling on the extreme cases. As we say in English:

It is just a few bad apples.

Keeping with my focus on the economy, I would like to address immigration and our economy and point out where the government's priorities should lie, in general, regarding immigration issues. Then, after talking about where the priorities should be, I would like to look at this particular piece of legislation and point out its useful elements and perhaps where some of the weaknesses lie.

The reason I would like to emphasize this, in a more general sense at first, is that criminality is so often the result of social marginalization and the economic difficulty of individuals and their communities. As I mentioned before, it is not linked to their country of origin or where they come from in the world but to much more complex factors, which I will get into.

First of all, instead of focusing on the few bad apples as the government has, the government should instead focus on the lost economic opportunities of our immigrant communities.

In a study by the University of Ottawa Research Group on the Economics of Immigration, the researchers found that if we found better ways to integrate our permanent residents, such as if their salary scale were similar to that of domestic labourers—in other words, if they were on a more even playing field with domestic workers—we would see a net increase in real GDP. We would also see better labour productivity and an improved federal fiscal balance. If the government is serious about the economy—and it says its priority is on the economy and jobs—focusing on those elements of our immigration system would offer far better benefits than putting the priority on the criminalization aspects of immigration law.

The study further found that immigration can help solve the issue of population aging. It was an interesting factoid in this research. We often hear from the government that OAS is not sustainable, which first of all, is patently false; we have shown the government at many stages that OAS is sustainable in the long term. Certainly, the immigration community could improve the sustainability of old age security. That was studied by this group just last year.

Instead of focusing on minority criminal elements, the government should instead use the power of the federal government for good, by doing such things as encouraging the benefits of employing immigrants in professional spheres, encouraging employers to be proactive by making arranged employment offers and using the federal government to help businesses find quality overseas labour, not to cut costs as it appears the government is doing by offering 15% less to workers but to improve the quality of our workforce.

If we emphasized that as an immigration policy and cast out a net in the world to catch the most qualified and brilliant people from other countries, enticed them to come here and enticed employers to start giving arranged employment offers to these people, we would see great benefits to our immigrant communities. It has been shown that immigrants with arranged employment offers earn 74% more than those who do not have them. There is a systemic problem of underemployment. The problem in the immigrant community of not being able to be employed to their full potential has serious economic effects and drags on our economy, which we could improve if we took action and leadership.

The government could improve funding to language programs. My colleague from York South—Weston pointed out many of the cuts made to settlement programs. Researchers and experts in the field know that language ability is one of the key factors in the full employability of permanent residents. If we improved funding to language programs offered by the provinces and gave guarantees and benchmarking, we would see net improvements. We have seen that the government is willing to offer piecemeal, half measures of giving loans to professionals wishing to improve their credentials in Canada. We believe the government is not doing enough to recognize fully the contributions that professionals trained abroad could offer to our country.

The Conservatives have talked a lot about this, but instead of focusing on this problem of recognizing foreign credentials, they choose to make these few bad apples a priority, the few criminals who have abused the system. If they are truly concerned about Canada's economy and it is truly their number one priority, as they say day in and day out, then they should look at the economic aspects of immigration, rather than the few criminals who cheat the system. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, my suspicion is that they are playing a political game and are being demagogic in their approach to immigration. I do not think their true priority is the economy. Rather, it is keeping their base close to them.

I have had many conversations with permanent residents in my riding and in other ridings, frankly. I have talked to an engineer who was trained abroad, and he spent up to two years looking for a job in his field. After landing, he was still searching for employment in the engineering field. We know Canada needs engineers in certain sectors, yet he could not find a job. This just should not be happening.

There are 1.5 million permanent residents who could contribute to our economic success if they were allowed to do so and if the government got behind them. Unfortunately, the government's priority seems to be looking at the criminal elements of our immigration community.

In a study, Bonikowska, Green and Riddell found that immigrants have more years of education and experience than Canadian-born individuals. Bastien, Bélanger and Ledent, in their study, found that having a degree from a western country increases the chances of finding a skilled job. There are some very complex questions that arise in these findings that I think the government should begin to tackle, to dismantle, but instead it is focusing on the criminal aspects of permanent residents, as I said.

To summarize, improving the economic situation of our permanent residents may actually decrease the rates of criminality, which are already incredibly low and not a serious demographic problem.

After addressing where our true priorities should lie, let us look at this particular piece of legislation and the positive and negative aspects of it.

I would like to start with the short title of the bill, faster removal of foreign criminals.

Certainly, people who have come to Canada as tourists and commit a crime, I would have no problem calling them foreign. If they are here on a trip and commit a crime, they are “foreigners”, in common parlance. However, someone who has undergone the years necessary to come to our country as a permanent resident, has undergone all the steps to acquire permanent residency, I would say is not a person who is foreign to us. I would never characterize such a person as a foreigner. Therefore, first of all, I take issue with the short title of the bill.

Someone who has been here for 20 years, does not take citizenship and screws up would be treated the same as someone who has been here for just one month. There is no discretion in the bill to differentiate these two individuals. I would be very uncomfortable treating these two people in the same fashion. That is something, if it comes up in committee, that I would urge the government side to tighten.

I do not think most Canadians would call somebody who has been here for 20 years a foreigner. I personally never use the term and I am uncomfortable with it. When I lived overseas, I was uncomfortable being called a foreigner. It immediately sets a distinction between somebody who belongs in the country and somebody who does not.

In the proposed section 22.1, the government's amendment would allow the minister to prevent someone from becoming a temporary resident if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations. That statement is much too vague. The English version of the bill uses “public policy” and the French version uses “intérêt public”. Those are not at all the same. There are nuances between the two. That statement is much too vague.

Legislators from all parties often base their decisions on morality. We often see in the immigration system that children are judged based on offences committed by their parents. We can find many examples in many moral systems where judging children for their parents' crimes is not a fair way of doing things.

It worries me that this bill gives the minister a new discretionary power to grant an exemption for a family member of a foreigner deemed inadmissible.

At the request of the individual or on the initiative of the minister, the minister may ignore the inadmissibility of a family member of someone who is inadmissible for reasons of security, human rights or international law violations, or organized crime, if he is satisfied that it is not contrary to the national interest.

National interest requires the minister to specifically take into account national security and public safety. Why not completely remove the section that concerns the children of the guilty party instead of giving the minister a discretionary power? Instead of giving the minister a discretionary power, the bill could state that children will not be found guilty like their parents.

What I agree with is that serious, violent criminals and war criminals should not receive a safe haven in Canada. That is why we are supporting the bill in principle at second reading. The principle of the bill is not misplaced, but it needs serious improvements.

Likewise, we believe that the priority should be placed on bettering the condition of the vast majority of law-abiding immigrants rather than targeting the tiny minority of law breakers. Maybe improving the condition of permanent residents would also have the effect of lessening the incidents of criminal activity, which is already very low, as I mentioned before.

We will be voting in support of this bill at second reading in order to clean up the sloppy elements of this obtusely written bill, because even though Maclean's may have named him the hardest working minister, something I do not deny, it obviously does not read his legislation and may confuse press conferences with hard work. Perhaps the minister should spend more time on the legislation and less time on the media prep for it.

Like the association of police chiefs, we think we need to close the loopholes in immigration legislation, and we support the principle of the bill. However, we believe the bill needs tightening up in committee.

In addition to the association of police chiefs, here are other validators of our position.

Mario Bellissimo, lawyer and executive member of the Canadian Bar Association, is one of the nation's top lawyers and part of an immigrant community that has often been tarred with the criminal epithet. He said referring to permanent residents as foreigners is misleading.

They are casting the net too wide... People make one mistake—even if it's a non-violent crime—they will be removed.

Furthermore, he thinks the bill reflects the government's lack of confidence in the immigration tribunal and the Canadian judiciary. We believe in the power of the Canadian judiciary and the tribunals to take care of these cases and to offer fair judgment. We do not believe that the minister necessarily needs discretionary powers.

As a member of Parliament, I personally help my constituents with the immigration process, but I have never once gone to the immigration minister to lobby a case that has already been dealt with by the judiciary and the tribunals. I simply have trust in the system. I believe in that system and I believe it needs support and leadership. However, taking the discretionary element away from the tribunals and judiciaries and giving it to the minister is not the right way to go.

In terms of dealing with violent criminals and war criminals, we certainly agree with the approach of the government. That is why we would support this bill in principle at second reading, to give the government time to do its homework and tighten up the bill.

Just as the tuna canners of old created dolphin-friendly tuna, we hope the government will make this legislation permanent resident friendly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us as members of Parliament can relate many heartbreaking stories about what is going on in the immigration system. However, I want to ask the member a question about Bill C-43.

I asked one of his colleagues about the lack of ministerial discretion to make an exception on compassionate grounds. It is limited only to where a child is directly affected. However, there is sweeping discretion that is quite mind-boggling in clause 8, which states:

The minister may, on the Minister's own initiative, declare that a foreign national...may not become a temporary resident if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

Public policy considerations are not defined.

The member's speech, of course, spoke to deporting people. What about refusing to allow someone to become a permanent resident with no real criteria being applied?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the government tries to give Canadians the impression through Bill C-43 that there are all these foreign criminals here who have to be dealt with, there is also a great deal of concern that we maybe also need to look at the other side when the member talks about the issue of priorities. There are immigrants who are exploited by immigration consultants and employment agencies and we do not necessarily hear of the same sorts of actions by the government in trying to deal with them.

Over the weekend I met an unfortunate person who was a live-in caregiver. In her situation, she was the victim of an employer who had been using his authority for purposes of sexual exploitation. She is fearful of how this will impact her as someone who wants ultimately to be a landed immigrant here in Canada.

Inside the House of Commons, we should be talking about other areas of concern that negatively impact those people who are being exploited. That priority does not seem to be there for the government. Would the member comment on that, given that he was talking about the exploitation—

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that, as we have gone through this debate, we on this side of the House seem to be the only party interested in what is going on. I have not heard a lot of questions or comments from the other side.

Bill C-43 is called the faster removal of foreign criminals act. The minister himself suggested that the bill would make it possible for legitimate visitors and immigrants to get better treatment. This bill may do that in a tiny way but it would not do it for the majority of well-meaning and non-criminal persons currently in Canada or those who want to come to Canada who are being treated with the slowest process since God made molasses. It is an incredibly slow process.

I have the privilege of representing the riding of York South--Weston which has an immigrant population of well over 50% and well over half live in apartment buildings. That is one of the reasons that my riding is a magnet for refugees and those refugees will be the ones facing the worst time of their lives as a result of the government's new applications. These refugees will find it more difficult to become Canadian citizens because it will be harder for them to reach all of the required thresholds. They will also find it more difficult to sponsor family members once they do become citizens.

The minister suggested that lessening the rules against spies would make it so much easier for persons to come to Canada and stay in Canada. If individuals spied against Canada or Canada's interests, they would not be considered a spy if they were spying for some other country or in some other country. Reading between the lines, it may be that the government is also adding industrial spying to that, although it is hard to tell. I am assuming that would make it easier for the tens of thousands of people who come to Canada, I say tongue-in-cheek, because that is clearly not a big problem.

The minister also suggested that if one member of a group does not meet the criteria, for medical reasons or otherwise, the whole group would be turned down. I agree that that is an excellent use of this legislation. That would actually cause some people to come to Canada who were otherwise be turned down. However, as I will tell members later, there are far more people being turned down for temporary visas without any reason. This is only a small part of the big problem.

The minister also suggested that the Minister of Public Safety could offer relief in some cases. Again, this another tiny piece of the puzzle.

The parliamentary secretary made it clear in his comments that the government's objective is to reduce the backlog of problems created by people coming to this country, and he referred specifically to the backlog that affected temporary foreign workers and the backlog that affected permanent skilled workers taking jobs that are not being filled by Canadians.

Missing from both of those objectives is the huge backlog of family reunification applications. There are probably hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases, some of which will take as many as 14 years from application to reunification because of the delays in processing and because there are not enough people working for the minister to get these things done. We have examples.

A woman wants to sponsor her husband but it is taking an unusual amount of time for the application to be processed. The background check is taking a long time to complete. The couple has been repeatedly asked to wait until a security background is completed, which means they have had to file several sets of medicals at their own expense. The application for sponsorship was forwarded in 2008, four years ago.

Another individual tried to sponsor his parents starting in 2007. They have now had three medicals because they keep expiring because it is taking so long.

Where is the government on trying to figure out how to make these things faster? The Conservatives are talking about getting criminals out faster, but they are not talking about getting deserving sponsored immigrants into the country faster.

Another person has been sponsoring his parents and siblings since 2003. We are now talking nine years. They have now gone through three medicals and they have had their third police clearance done because they keep expiring. In the meantime, the father has passed away. That is what happens when the system takes too long: people die in other countries as a result.

A woman, a convention refugee, who applied for permanent residence, also included her 11-year-old son in her application. Her son is alone in Nigeria. Immigration officials have said, “Too bad, there is a 24-month wait to process her application”.

Another individual has been sponsoring parents and one dependent sister since 2008 and is still waiting. The list goes on and on, and this is but a small sampling of those we have heard about in my office. There are hundreds more in my office, and I have only been there since last year, who have run afoul of the system. We are having to tell them that it takes 14 years, 10 years or nine years, and their parents or their grandparents will die before the application goes through.

Then there is the backlog in skilled worker applications that the minister talked about. Yet with the stroke of a pen the minister actually got rid of hundreds of thousands of skilled worker applications and forced them all to apply again. How is that speeding anything in our system? We are talking about speeding the removal of foreign criminals, but we are not doing anything to speed up the process for legitimate people who want to come to this country and provide a skilled, valued service to this country.

I have one applicant who has been trying to come to Canada for five years. He made the application before the “stroke of the pen” issue. At the time he applied, the language requirement was less stringent than it is today. He has studied and worked in the United States. He taught in the United States, so obviously his English is good but somehow he failed the English test that was given to him out of Cambridge University in England.

Why we are giving British tests for Canadian English is beyond me. To a person who is not a native-born speaker, it may be difficult. He found it difficult. He missed by one point. He is a doctor. We need doctors. He is actually certified to practise in this country. He wants to bring his wife with him, who is also a doctor, and his daughter, who is in medical school. They cannot come because he fell short by one point because the language requirement was no good. The skilled worker application has its flaws too.

As for temporary foreign workers, the other side keeps crowing about the many jobs they have created. How many of them are filled by temporary foreign workers? There are over 300,000 jobs currently filled by temporary foreign workers. They are temporary, so that is in the last two years. Since the last recession ended or whenever the economic meltdown happened under the Conservative watch, over 300,000 of those supposed new jobs they have created are actually being filled by temporary foreign workers.

Now, with a stroke of the pen, the minister has decided those foreign workers can be paid 15% less than their Canadian counterparts, so it will be even easier for an employer to say they cannot find anybody because the employer is offering 15% less than the going rate. People are not taking the jobs, so the employer wants to hire foreigners.

We have temporary foreign workers flying planes in this country. We do not have a shortage of airline pilots in this country, but we have temporary foreign workers working for some airlines.

There is something wrong with this system. It would appear to be a part of the Conservative economic action plan to drive down wages in this country through the use of temporary foreign workers at 15% reductions, through the use of reductions in EI that force people to take wages at 30% lower rates than they earned before, and by doing all this, the Conservative can then say, “Hey, our economic action plan is working. We are improving Canadians' productivity. We are getting more out of them for less”.

That is not what Canadians want. Canadians do not want to be working for less money, to have their standard of living eroded by the government. They want real action on the economy and they do not want it through the use of temporary foreign workers, which the parliamentary secretary referred to as a good thing.

We also have a whole bunch of issues with the PRRA system, the pre-removal risk assessment. I have a couple of examples here. We have an individual who is being deported to Spain. His mother is a refugee in Canada who has finalized her refugee status and is actually allowed to stay in Canada. She was born in Peru. He was born in Spain as a result of her being raped. Now he is being deported back to Spain because he was not covered by her refugee application. He is 12 years old. He knows no one in Spain. Spain is the last place he wants to go because it was the source of a lot of pain for his family. What government does this to people?

Now the new rules would be: no entitlement to a PRRA because we do not want to do that anymore.

These are examples of how the system is not working. We are tinkering on the edges with something that might appeal to the Conservative base across the way because it has to do with law and order. It might appeal to the baser instincts of some individuals in the Conservative base, because they can tout it as law and order. However, it is such a small part of the overall problem of immigration in our country that it is difficult to imagine that so much time and effort is being spent on this kind of thing instead of on the real problems that face immigrants in our country, instead of on the real problems that face those who are already here and those who should be here as a result of sponsorship applications. Those delays in the sponsorship applications are costing lives. People are dying in other countries.

The minister also mentioned in his speech this afternoon that he is spending lots more money on immigrant settlement services. He mentioned a figure of $35 million. Well, it sure is not happening in my riding. My riding has seen cut after cut in immigrant settlement services to the point where some organizations have folded altogether. Is that because we have fewer immigrants coming to my riding? No, there are lots coming to the riding. In fact, there are two apartment buildings that are now full of Roma refugees in the last two years, so much so that the superintendent has had to go out and hire a Hungarian translator because he cannot communicate with these people. They are coming to the riding in great numbers but the services that they are asking for keep disappearing.

We have a 6% cut at Access Alliance; a 4.2% at COSTI, which caused a layoff; a 10% cut at the Learning Enrichment Foundation. Midaynta lost all of its funding, $400,000. It has closed up. York Weston Community Services Centre lost $800,000. It closed, with twelve and a half people laid off. Languages that are no longer helped in this riding are Dinka, Nuer, Spanish, Arabic, French, Kiswahili, Russian, Farsi, Dari and Somali.

York Weston Community Services Centre was urged the previous year to sign a long-term lease. It did. The government said the organization was good for it and that it should sign the five-year lease. It signed it and then all of its budget was cut, some $800,000 gone. Northwood Neighbourhood Services lost $378,000, which caused the layoff of five settlement workers and admin staff. That is 100% of its Citizenship and Immigration Canada funds. It gets money from other places, so it is only 30% of its overall budget.

These things are happening in my riding. For the minister to tell us, bold-faced, that he is spending more on settlement services is just crazy. Community Action Resource Centre lost $305,000, which was 40% of its budget. It lost all of the federal funding. It still has some provincial funding, but it has lost 12 staff. It has caused layoffs in my riding, which is already a riding with a huge unemployment problem.

The Vietnamese Women's Association lost $30,000 in Citizenship and Immigration Canada funding. Access Alliance lost $300,000. Toronto District School Board's newcomer services for youth lost 100% of its funding and the program was closed.

There actually are many more but I am going to run out of time if I read them all. The point is that the government is single-mindedly focused on the wrong problem. There is a problem with settlement services in the riding. There is a problem with immigration systems into the riding. There is a problem with the family sponsorship system and with too many temporary foreign workers being allowed to come to this country and take jobs that would otherwise be filled by Canadians.

Rather than focusing on those problems, the government is going to speed up the removal of a handful of criminals, and not necessarily even the right criminals. Because of the cuts to the immigrant settlement funding we now have employers in the riding telling us that it is making it difficult for them to employ the skilled immigrants coming into the country under skilled worker applications because they do not have the necessary fail-safes and backup mechanisms and training to learn how to live in Canada. Those things are not there any more.

Employers are coming to my office and saying it is a problem for them as employers. They are saying that they cannot be as productive or efficient as employers because although these people have great skills to do the jobs, they are not getting along in Canada because the settlement services are just not there. Maybe we need some Conservatives to actually listen to these employers and hear the fact that cutting settlement services was not a good thing. Cutting the settlement services also makes it difficult for the children of these recent immigrants.

I have a huge Somali community in my riding, again because my riding is a place where it is easy for refugees to come because the rents are so cheap and the riding is full of low-income housing. Those Somali refugees have been here for maybe as long as 20 years. It has been 42 years since there was an election in Somalia. The country just had an election this month and a new president was elected. There was a big party celebrating that because they are hopeful that maybe Somalia will turn itself around.

However, the problem is this. We have the tragedy of six Somali youth this summer who were tragically murdered in what we can only assume was some kind of gangland problem, but it raises the spectre of what happens to those disaffected Somali youth when their settlement services are gone, when they have no hope, no job, no help from the government, when the services that even the ministry of public safety had have been cut? There have been cuts and more cuts and these kids have no hope. Some of them turn to crime as a result. What is going to happen to those kids who get a six-month or longer sentence and who are 18 years of age and have been in Canada 17 of those 18 years but are still Somali? They are going to get deported to a country that is war-torn, that really has no government, that is unsafe and where they have no family. That is just wrong.

I said earlier that the wrong people are perhaps going to be deported and I would point to those Somali youth in that regard. With just one bad occurrence they will have a record, but are now going to have an even bigger problem. If the sentence is six months or more, they will get kicked out of the country without their family.

Yet as I said to the minister earlier, Conrad Black is still here and although the crime he committed in the U.S. could apparently have been punished by a 14-year sentence here in Canada, he is still here. It tells us that there seems to be a double standard. There seems to be a system that if someone is just stealing money from ordinary Canadians through some kind of fraudulent system, that is okay and the person can come back.

I also want to comment because Todd Baylis Boulevard is in my riding and was named after the Todd Baylis who was killed. We in the NDP will do anything we can to make sure that kind of thing does not happen again. We are not opposed to the part of the bill that would prevent a criminal being left in this country long enough to be able to commit crimes of a violent nature, nor would we ever be. However, we want to make sure that it is done in a way that is fair and honest and does not rest so much power in the hands of one or two ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address you as Mr. Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to the chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding Bill C-43, which I hope will be addressed in further study at committee. New Democrats recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial apparatus for removing serious criminals who are not citizens. However, this bill seems to extend beyond this and effectively removes some of the required checks and balances within our immigration system.

I have a few concerns with the changes included in Bill C-43. Bill C-43 would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister, giving the minister new discretionary authority over the admissibility of temporary residents. It would relieve the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances and as well would change what would constitute serious criminality for the purpose of access to an appeal of a determination of inadmissibility.

Previously a conviction in Canada with a sentence of two years or more resulted in an automatic revocation of a permanent or temporary resident's right to an appeal at the Immigration Appeal Division. Bill C-43, however, would revoke the right to appeal inadmissibility when there would be a conviction of six months or more.

New Democrats have said time and again that 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.

An appeal process allows officials to make determinations on an individual basis, weighing all the factors to determine if someone should or should not be deported. Further to this, with the government's tough on crime agenda, we have seen a whole slew of crimes receive a mandatory minimum sentence of more than six months. The change from two years to six months merits further study of the offences that would now be included in this.

This concentration of power in the hands of one minister is a trend we continue to see under the government and is a cautionary tale of the direction of our immigration system under a Conservative majority. Granting the minister the power to unilaterally prohibit a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for up to 36 months based on public policy considerations is a vague and broad discretion.

The broad and far-reaching powers given to the minister in Bill C-43 seem to once again go too far and require balance. Additionally, there seems to be a double standard at play when it comes to ministerial authority. When convicted foreign criminal, Conrad Black wanted back in Canada, the minister claimed that the matter was handled independently, yet now he wants the power to deport criminals.

Across the country, immigration and health experts have been raising their concerns to the changes in the bill. There are concerns among advocates that the bill runs a risk of deporting offenders who arrive in Canada with their parents at a very young age. Despite Canada being the only home they know and grew up in, we would deport them to a country about which they may know nothing.

Moreover, professionals who work with immigrants and refugees have stated that this new federal legislation unfairly punishes the young and people with mental illness. Bill C-43 has been marketed exclusively on its intent to speed up deportations of serious multiple offenders. However, the devil is in the details and these details merit further study and expert opinion.

What I also find particularly troubling throughout the course of immigration changes the government has introduced is the language that the Conservative government continues to use when speaking about newcomers in our country.

When discussing Bill C-31, refugees who were fleeing war-torn countries to save their lives were continually referred to as “bogus” and “queue jumpers” in need of mandatory detention by the members opposite. Now under Bill C-43, permanent residents are referred as “foreigners”. This term is misleading and wide-sweeping, completely neglecting the fact that permanent residents have spent the majority of their lives in Canada, contributing to our communities and paying taxes.

The majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding citizens who do not commit crimes. Rather than introducing legislation that continues to demonize newcomers, where is the support for newcomers who follow the rules? Why is the government not spending more time ensuring that the majority of newcomers in Canada are being treated fairly and are not waiting three to five years to be reunited with their partners and children? We need a government that acts to help new Canadians reunite with their families and find work that matches their skill set.

The New Democrats look to work with the government to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process without trampling on rights. We continue to stand with newcomers who want the government to focus on making our immigration system faster and fairer for the vast majority who do not commit crimes and follow the rules.

We can allow the systems currently in place, including our immigration tribunal and Canadian judiciary, to do their work or provide them with the necessary resources to do the job effectively rather than trivializing the judicial process and giving the minister the authority to arbitrarily make decisions. I should add, if the minister were serious about improving Canada's immigration and refugee system, he would stop appointing his friends to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

We could also do what the Auditor General has repeatedly recommended and make improvements to the current system and administration of the laws currently in place, including proper training, service standards and quality assurance checks.

Rather than continually portraying newcomers negatively, the government should focus on giving law enforcement the resources it needs to keep us safe from all criminals.

I spent the summer talking to constituents about community safety and social issues in Scarborough. What I heard from constituents were worries and concerns for the need for support and prevention strategies to keep our youth from turning to crime and actions from the federal government to keep our communities safe. At the end of the day, victims were concerned that crimes were being committed in their communities and steps were not being taken to prevent these crimes.

I hope the government will take the concerns raised by experts, myself and my colleagues on this side of the House seriously at the committee level and that it will listen to the experts' warnings about the impacts and consequences of the bill on people with the intention of improvements and upholding rights,.

It is a warning to us all that some of the concerns raised by experts during the study of Bill C-31 are already being realized. Thanks to Bill C-31, all refugee claimants are now banned from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment within one year of receiving a negative answer on their claim. This assessment is used as a second chance to consider whether it is truly safe to send a rejected claimant back to his or her country of origin.

Last week, we learned of a woman from Iran who could face deportation despite new evidence proving that she faces an adultery charge that could, under sharia law, result in her being stoned to death. Although her lawyer obtained new documents to speak to her refugee claim, because of the changes included in Bill C-31, this new evidence cannot be considered by the Canada Border Service Agency officials because of the one-year rule.

I recall hearing this very concern raised, that new evidence can come to light during this one-year period, during the Bill C-31 study at committee. Unfortunately, this concern, along with many others, fell on the deaf ears of our government and were left unaddressed.

I hope that this is not repeated during the study of Bill C-43 in committee, but rather that we listen to the experts and work together to prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeals process while upholding our Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have a couple of briefings both with the parliamentary library as well as the minister's office with respect to the bill. I made reference to the fact that if Bill C-43 were to pass, Nelson Mandela's wife would not have been able to have visited Canada during a very interesting time in world history. It was pointed out to me that Mr. Mandela's wife had some issues relating to the law too so that might not necessarily have been a good example. However, one can make reference to Mahatma Gandhi's wife, as she would not have qualified to visit Canada. I thought that was somewhat interesting.

The point is that if this law is passed, it will have a significant impact on individuals to be able to visit Canada, not because of their own personal behaviour but because of the behaviour associated with someone in their family. By doing that, we are denying those individuals the opportunity to visit family in Canada.

Could the member comment on the unfairness of that, especially given that in the same legislation the minister is taking the power to deny someone the ability to come to Canada? There is a bit of a contradiction there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will be sharing my time.

We are supporting this bill's going forward at second reading, with some very strong reservations. As we have seen throughout the debate here today, the reservations speak to a number of issues in the bill that certainly involve moving further than simply the faster removal of foreign criminals

One issue we have great concern about is the concentration of more power in the hands of the minister, giving him the discretionary ability based on public policy considerations to restrict the entrance of foreign nationals, making them inadmissible for up to 36 months.

We have seen the parliamentary secretary stand up and admit that on the face of it, this is very controversial and really needs a lot of work. I think back to what has happened during my time in Parliament and the minister's actions. At his discretion, he refused entrance into Canada of former British MP George Galloway. In a resulting court case, Mr. Galloway challenged the minister over this. The Ontario supreme court came out with a 60-page decision castigating the minister for exercising this authority in that way that excluded Mr. Galloway based on certain political considerations.

Therefore, we really have to be very careful with this. This is treading into an area that has been a minefield in Canada in the past. I think back to the period before the Second World War, when we refused massive numbers of refugees from Eastern Europe because of political considerations, not because they were bad people or criminals who were going to cause a lot of trouble in Canada. No, it was because political factors were taken into consideration. If we are moving back in a direction of looking at political considerations and opening up that door where we have not been for a while, I think it is something we have to look at very carefully.

We are relieving the minister of the responsibility of looking at humanitarian circumstances in these matters, where human beings' lives are being altered irrevocably by the decisions we are making, and not making the minister look at the situation created by the acts of Canadians officials in expelling people from the country. I think that is really not in the Canadian mould. We tend to say that we believe in the sanctity of families, that we believe in the importance of paying careful attention to children, to the kinds of things that tie people together in a particular instance.

To simply say that we are going to relieve the minister of that responsibility needs some definite explanation. Why should the minister not want to have some ability to deal with this? Why should this not be part of his responsibility? When we have an impact upon people's lives, we need to understand that it is our responsibility and that we need to look at those things in the context they are presented. It is not that simple.

One provision that I find very difficult is the proposed increase in the penalty for misrepresentation. We are all MPs here. We all have offices. We all see people coming in, immigrants, landed immigrants, and people who are looking to get their parents or children into the country. The forms can lend themselves to mistakes.

The difference between a mistake and a misrepresentation is sometimes a very narrow line. When it comes to someone's educational qualifications, he or she may say, “I went to school there. I graduated there”. Is that acceptable? Can he or she prove it? Are there other issues that come into the presentation or the information that may need some clarification?

We need to look very hard at what “misrepresentation” means and what it entails. That can be done in committee. How can we define it carefully so we are not simply shutting people who make a mistake out of the country. We have to be very careful with that. It is something that can lead to all kinds of problems for people.

What constitutes “serious criminality?” This is something we have had a good debate on today. Quite obviously, when we move from a sentence of two years down to a sentence of six months, we are moving the bar pretty low. We are taking that bar right down so the ability of someone to get under it will be much more difficult. We really need to understand it. I assume the committee will go through some statistical analysis of what it will mean, what kind of offences have been generated that produce a sentence of six months in contrast to those that would produce sentences of two years.

Certainly, we have all seen people go to prison for six months for fairly minor offences that do not justify the disruption of their family life or taking them away from employer, if they happen to be good employees, doing all of that for something that is criminal but not necessarily of a serious nature. Therefore, the definition really needs work.

It will be interesting to see how it comes back from committee and what happens with the bill, what kinds of amendments and definitions are struck so we can truly understand how this will impact society.

I trust the Conservatives will follow the example the parliamentary secretary set with the one particular passage in the bill that he clearly stated needed work. We need an understanding of the whole bill in a very careful fashion, which can come through committee. After that, we can see whether the bill will be acceptable to this party. I am sure there will be further consideration of that.

These are important issues which are not to be taken lightly. I trust the government will go into that committee with the good intention of really coming to grips with this bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that Bill C-43 is called the faster removal of foreign criminals act. However, one of the key items in the bill would give the minister the power to declare a person inadmissible for up to 36 months according to whatever public policy consideration he may choose to use. That has nothing to do with reporting people or removing criminals; it is really about something completely different. Is that not very deceiving?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, and I particularly enjoyed the examples that he slipped into his speech.

I would like him to comment or provide his opinion to see if he shares a certain vision. Actually, in listening to the debates since this morning, I have the impression that, with Bill C-43, the Conservatives are trying to depict a very simple, if not simplistic, situation: there are good guys and bad guys; it is black or white. But in my distinguished colleague's speech, it seems that there were many shades of grey, in various situations.

It makes me wonder whether this simple situation, if that is what it is, is truly so simple—when he talks, among other things, about the possibility of the minister's reviewing a foreigner's admissibility—when I hear phrases like: “if he feels it is justified by public policy considerations.” It seems to me that, with such phrases, the hon. member is being completely subjective. However, the picture the Conservatives have been painting since this morning, particularly with their examples, is that the situation is simple, black or white, and that is that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 contains some fairly significant changes. We would like to think that the government will be open to ideas or the possibility of amendments, especially in the area of the ministerial power, but also in other aspects of the legislation.

What are the member's thoughts about the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism being given the authority to tell someone that he or she cannot come to Canada without having any checks in place? Does she feel that this would be an amendment that she would be supportive of in terms of ensuring there is a check in place to limit the minister's ability to deny someone access to Canada?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-43, yet another immigration bill. With 1.4 million Canadians out of work, 300,000 more Canadians today than in 2008 when there was an economic recession, one would think the House and the Conservative government would actually focus more on job creation instead of putting all their energy into dealing with perceived problems through legislative means.

Since 2000, the auditors general have been saying that the problem with who comes into the country and who gets deported is not really with the law, but with the administration of the law. A succession of auditor general reports, in 2000, 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2011, all five reports said the same thing. Between Canada's immigration service and the Canadian Border Service Agency, there are serious problems in how the law is administered as to who gets into the country and who gets deported.

The 2007 auditor general report talked about it not being clear which department did what. It said that it was not consistent as to who was deported and who came in and the level of compliance was not monitored. There was no regard as to how much it cost to remove people from the country. More damning was it could not track those who needed to be deported. For a good percentage of them, it was unknown where they had gone. In dealing with detentions and removals, the report stated that the policies and procedures were not applied consistently and that the database that dealt with detentions and removals was a complete mess, unfortunately.

That was in 2008, four years ago. Surely, things would have improved. Surely, we would know who we were letting in, whether they were criminals or not, and who was being deported. Actually, no, things have not improved.

The Auditor General did another report in 2011. Many hours and months were spent tracking what was happening with Canada Border Services Agency, which has the task of dealing with people, and Canadian immigration services overseas, as to who was admissible to Canada and who needed to be deported. It noted in chapter 2 of the report that the operation manuals had not been updated and there were actually three different screening manuals. However, with the hundreds of bulletins and manuals, if the officers wanted to check, they did not have the search capacity to do so. Therefore, they were trying to find out which manuals to apply and which bulletins they should use. They would go on a search and their computer system would not allow them to search. It was not clear. There are many and they are not necessarily updated either.

It is interesting that there is a lack of country specific risk profiles. The profiles are not systematically produced and, even if they are produced, they are not distributed. According to chapter 2.29 of the Auditor General's report, the overseas officers often have no idea what kind of person should not be coming into our country. In fact, half of the officers said that they did not have specific and sufficient information to assess if people were inadmissible. They do not know whether they have security concerns because the manual is not updated, the risk profile is not clear, it is not systematically produced and it is not distributed.

As I said earlier, there were audits in 2000, 2003 and 2008. The Auditor General went back to see whether there was a framework to ensure the quality of the jobs done, both here in Canada and overseas, and whether there was a performance review. Apparently, there is no performance review, no guidance, no training and not enough information to properly determine who should or should not come into this country. That is from the Auditor General's 2011 report, chapter 2.37.

In chapter 2.39 of the report it states that the department's 2011 program integrity framework calls for the monitoring of the quality of decision making through random, systematic and targeted quality assurance activities. That means that they check to see whether the law is being applied properly. This so-called program integrity framework has not been implemented and, therefore, is not done, which means that we do not know whether the existing law, the previous law or the future law is being applied.

We are seeing that the Conservatives keep trying to change the channel. It is the department that is broken and the system is not working, according to the Auditor General. Instead of cleaning the system and doing it better administratively, the Conservatives are wasting time. They keep trying to change the law every three months and taking the time to change the channel. For Canadians who know that something is not right, the Conservatives would say that it is not the system that is the problem but that it is the law, which is not true. According to the Auditor General, it is the system that is broken.

I have more. The Conservatives said that there are all types of problems because there is no timely review of the effectiveness of the security screening process. Whether it is CSIS, CBSA or Canada Immigration Service, we need to have all of them connected. The Auditor General said that the IT systems are not inter-operable, meaning that they are not necessarily connected. The field agents, the people out there working to decide who gets to come in and who needs to be deported, cannot get all the information they need. That is another problem.

The Auditor General went on and identified other serious problems. It is not just the system. The report also mentions that there is an absence of a formal training program or curriculum. The workers are not formally trained. It says that close to 40% of the analysts had not received training. They do not know how to apply the law because they have not received training. It is not their fault. As well, 74% were missing training in research techniques. That is the majority. Three out of four front-line officers were missing training in research techniques, so they do not know how to do it.

To make it worse, even though there is no formal training program or curriculum, if they have been there for a long time, maybe they would gain that information and knowledge from experience, but no. Forty per cent of the staff have employment records for two years or less, which means there is a high turnover in the front-line staff. There is little stability. With high turnover and very little training, it makes the situation much worse.

It is the system and the administration of the law that are the problems. Instead, rather than fixing the problem, we have yet another immigration bill, Bill C-43, to deal with the admissibility of temporary residents. We can change the law all we want but if there is the absence of a formal training program or curriculum, a high turnover, the manuals are not up to date, there is very little risk assessment and the system is not being reviewed in a way that is comprehensive, there is a serious problem.

The Auditor General went on to say that when officers make decisions, they normally document the reasons for them. Actually, 28%, which is 3 out of 10, have documentation, which means that when 7 out of 10 officers make decisions, they do not document them. Did the person who made the decision follow procedure as to who gets deported and who gets admitted? We do not know. Did the person who made the decision conduct a full assessment? The public does not know because the person did not document what he or she did when the decision was made. Normally there would be mandatory checks but that was not done in 80% of the cases and the checklist was not used, which is a serious problem.

What did the Auditor General say needs to be done? He said that there needs to be a quality assurance process, good training and service standards. Are there service standards yet? No. CBSA and CIC have no service standards. How do we know whether the people coming into this country or being deported are the right people? We do not know.

The Auditor General asked how the problem got started. Apparently, in 2003, when CIC used to deal with enforcement, it separated that out and gave it to the Canada Border Services Agency, which established it and changed the act. Since then, it has not been clear as to who does what. It has done two memorandums of understanding and yet the information, management and share services were still under negotiation as of a few months ago. It is still trying to figure out who is supposed to do what. It was supposed to do a joint risk management strategy so that it would be clear as to how risk would be dealt with, those who are allowed to come into the country through temporary resident permits, except that its joint risk management strategy has not been implemented. It sounds good but it has not done it yet. Instead of ensuring that the director and the front-line staff do what they need to do, we have yet another legislative change.

According to the Auditor General, there is a huge problem. Chapter 2.96 states that CIC and CBSA do not have systematic mechanisms for quality assurance or measuring performance that would provide a reasonable level of assurance that their processes are working and that practices are appropriate for today's challenges.

Furthermore, the organizations have only recently begun to develop a joint risk management approach, as they have not done it yet, and similar issues have been identified in our audits since 2000. This is not a new problem. There needs to be a sustained effort by CIC and CBSA to address the gaps in the admissibility determination process so that the related risks are properly managed.

That was in 2011. What about this year, 2012? The assistant Auditor General, Wendy Loschiuk, and the principal responsible for the audit I was quoting from, Gordon Stock, came to the immigration committee. At that time, committee members asked whether all the recommendations in the Auditor General report had been implemented. Ms. Loschiuk said that even though some better techniques to track people had been adopted, the whereabouts of some of these people were still unknown.

In fact, it is not clear where 41,000 of these folks have gone and, of the people who were detained but released on bonds, it is not clear whether they have complied with the conditions of their release. There was little information available on the costs of detaining and removing persons or on whether policies and standards for detention were applied fairly. Now we would be giving the minister even more arbitrary power to apply these so-called policies and standards even though we do not know whether they are being applied fairly because there are no performance standards. This whole thing is absurd. They need to better coordinate their efforts.

The report is very damning. It says that there are lots of gaps in the system and very little helpful information available from security partners. It also says that security screening for a permanent residence visa can sometimes take more than three years, which is too long. It also says that the system to check whether it is working needs to be strengthened for the admissibility determination process.

In a system that is supposed to help protect Canadians, it is just as important to review the decisions to grant visas as it is to review the decisions to deny them. As the Auditor General said, rather than focusing on decisions on why visas are denied, we should focus on how visas are granted. However, that has not been done.

Is this a serious problem? Yes, the system is in serious need of change. However, I want to put it in perspective. Only 1% of applicants for temporary residence and 0.1% of applicants for permanent residence were found to be inadmissible. Of the 257,000 people who come to this country and become permanent residents, what are we talking about? We are talking about 46 people, which is not a huge concern in terms of changing the law. The real concern is how the law is being administered.

The Conservatives have fallen down on the job of ensuring the law is being applied properly and fairly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. As members will know, I make a point of attending all debates on bills for which I am responsible. I take the importance of ministerial presence in these debates very seriously and so I appreciate the indulgence of the House in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 is an important measure to strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. We call it the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. We all know that Canada welcomes newcomers from around the world. Since coming to power, this government has accepted more immigrants than any other government in Canadian history: over a quarter of a million per year, or 14% more than the previous Liberal government. We have also maintained the highest per capita immigration rate in the developed world. This means that we add approximately 0.8% of our population through immigration every year. We have also increased the number of resettled refugees by 20%. We will be inviting more than 14,000 additional convention refugees to settle in Canada, which will give us the highest refugee resettlement rate in the world.

Our government has also tripled funding for settlement and integration services for new immigrants. We have done so much to help immigrants integrate and succeed.

When I work closely with new immigrants to Canada, I listen to them when they say that they want an immigration system that is fair and in keeping with our laws. That means that they want an immigration system that is based on the rule of law. They do not want anyone who poses a threat to the safety of our communities to come to Canada or to remain here. They want a system that welcomes newcomers from all over the world who want to come here, obey our laws, build Canada, contribute by paying taxes and respect Canada. New Canadians have no patience for those who come here to abuse the generosity of Canada and Canadians.

That is what I hear from new Canadians all around the country, that they and all Canadians, whether born here or newly arrived, treasure our country's historic posture of openness to the hard work and talents of newcomers, including refugees from persecution. At the same time, Canadians, especially those who came to this country from abroad, have no patience with those who would violate our laws or abuse our country's generosity. That is why we brought forward Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, which seeks to make several amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are designed, on the one hand, to facilitate and make easier the entry into Canada of legitimate visitors and immigrants and, on the other hand, to give us stronger legal tools to bar from Canada those who may pose a risk to this country and to remove from Canada those who have committed serious crimes and been convicted of such by our fair judicial system.

Allow me to review the provisions of the act. First, with respect to facilitating the admission of bona fide visitors and immigrants, the bill seeks to narrow the breadth of the inadmissibility provision for espionage to focus on activities carried out against Canada or that are contrary to the interests of Canada.

Quite frankly, this has the effect of covering those who may have been involved in espionage for close democratic allies of Canada and who may in fact have been gathering intelligence on behalf of Canada against common security threats. We believe that the wording in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is unnecessarily broad and that we ought to focus the inadmissibility provision with respect to espionage on those who have been engaged in spying contrary to the interests of Canada.

Second, the bill would permit the temporary entry of persons with an inadmissible family member, except where the family member is inadmissible for security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality.

There could be a family, for example, that has applied to visit Canada but has one medically inadmissible family member, that is to say, someone who according to officials and a medical exam might pose an excessive burden on Canada's taxpayer-funded public health system. In that case, under the current law, the entire family, all members, would be rendered inadmissible because they are considered as a package, as it were. This amendment would allow us to sever the one inadmissible person from that group, so that the other family members could still be admissible to Canada. This is a measure that has been broadly supported by immigration practitioners and others who see the unnecessary breadth of the currently law.

Third, the bill provides express authority for the Minister of Public Safety to grant ministerial relief on the minister's own initiative. This is to say that if our legal system, let us say the Canada Border Services Agency, which is delegated by me under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, finds that someone is inadmissible, there is a lengthy, time-consuming process to seek relief from the minister. This clarifies that the minister could take that initiative, and it streamlines the relief process for legitimate and bona fide visitors or immigrants.

I will now talk about measures in the bill that will strengthen the integrity of the system and protect the safety of Canadians.

First, the bill will create a new authority for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. The minister will be able to deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals for up to three years based on public policy considerations.

This would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, on public policy grounds, to deny admission to Canada for up to three years to a foreign national who otherwise may be admissible. This is a very delicate part. It is a very delicate proposal that we are making, and I really to hope that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will focus on this particular proposal to help guide me, frankly, and the government as to how we can construct criteria, either by ministerial order or published regulations or perhaps even an amendment to the bill itself that would help us address, let me call them, really exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

Under the current law, a foreign national is typically inadmissible only if he or she has a criminal record in a foreign country for crimes that would also be considered serious in Canada. That excludes political prisoners, because so-called political crimes with trumped up charges are not a crime in Canada. Or, if they are or have been a member of a criminal organization or a banned terrorist group or, as I mentioned before, have been involved in espionage or may pose a serious security risk to Canada, he or she is inadmissible, or if they are medically inadmissible, and some other categories.

Here is the problem. From time to time we get people seeking admission to Canada who may not have a criminal record abroad, but who may actually be coming here to incite hatred and violence, or to incite terrorism.

I will give the example of two British nationals, I believe, named Abdur Raheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis. Last year, they came to Canada even though they had a horrible record of promoting hatred against women, homosexuals, gays and lesbians, Jews and certain other minorities. A number of Canadians were afraid that the men intended to come to Canada to incite hatred, violence and perhaps even terrorism. Under current laws such persons cannot be prevented from entering Canada. For example, in some countries, it is not a crime to promote hatred against Jews or homosexuals.

This bill would give the minister the discretion, with certain limits, to prevent certain foreign nationals from entering Canada if they plan to promote violence, even though it is not a crime in their country of origin.

This is something we will have to study in more detail when the bill is before the standing committee.

Second, the bill seeks to lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months and also bar those who are convicted of an offence or have committed an act outside Canada, which if committed in Canada would carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years. Perhaps this is my colleague's most important element of the bill.

Let me explain. The perpetually angry member for Winnipeg North and sadly misinformed Liberal critic for immigration was outraged with the suggestion that we should deport foreigners in Canada who had been convicted by Canadian courts of a serious crime, punished and given a sentence of six months or more.

Apparently and regrettably, the Liberal critic is not aware of even the basics of the current immigration law. The Immigration Refugee Protection Act, adopted in 2002, when his party was in government, says that if a foreign national is convicted of a crime with a sentence of six months or more, he or she is subject to deportation. That is what the current law states.

Here is the problem. Because the Liberals were more concerned about the procedural rights of criminals than public safety, they allowed for a loophole, which was that people who were convicted of a crime of six months or more as foreign nationals would be subject to deportation. However, if the sentences were two years or less, so somewhere between six months and two years, they could appeal the deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division.

How does this work? I have a case wherein a foreign national, Cesar Guzman, raped a Canadian senior citizen. He was convicted of sexual assault. His sentence was 18 months in jail. He managed to delay his deportation for four years, meaning that this man who sexually assaulted a Canadian senior, this foreigner, was walking our streets posing a risk to other Canadians. Why? Because after his conviction, he would have gone to the Immigration Division of the Immigration Refugee Board that would have ordered his deportation pursuant to the current provisions in IRPA. Then he would have used the Liberal delay tactic. He would have appealed that deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division. I do not have his whole chronology here, but I am sure, because I have seen this hundreds of times, he would have lost at the Immigration Appeal Division and then appealed that to the Federal Court. If he was really aggressive, like some of these other characters who we have seen, he would have appealed that negative decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

If we add up each of those appeals, what does that mean in concrete, real world terms? It means violent foreign criminals, convicted by Canadian courts of law, are walking our streets when they should no longer be in Canada because they have lost the privilege of being here. That is the point the member does not seem to understand. To be a foreign national in Canada, whether as a visitor or as a permanent resident, is a privilege. It is not a hard one to keep. All we ask of the individual is two things: first, if that individual wants to maintain permanent residence, he or she has to live here for two out of five years; and, second, that the individual not commit a serious crime.

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. I agree, because I am as committed, as any member of the House, to due process and natural justice in the rule of law. I agree that even serious convicted foreign criminals should get their day in court. I agree that they should benefit from due process. I agree that they should not be deported without consideration by the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, I do not agree that they should get endless years in court and be able to abuse our fair process. With this bill, we would put an end to that abuse.

We have cases like in my own hometown of Calgary. Calgarians, especially those in the Vietnamese community, were outraged.

The member for Winnipeg North is laughing—

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

Mr. Speaker, what I was hoping to hear from one of our critics was some positive amendments that would strengthen Bill C-43.

I just heard another speech about how much the opposition members have so many other issues that they think are a priority, and that this is not one they want to talk about while the bill is actually being debated in the House of Commons.

At the beginning of his statement, the member said that he had been ambushed by the bill, that this bill came upon him without any knowledge. The member then answered his own question by stating that he had had two full briefings on the bill. The member did acknowledge that he was never ambushed. He has had every opportunity to be briefed by department officials, myself or whoever. If he would like to hear more about the bill, he will get to do that at committee.

However, for the member to suggest that he was ambushed, perhaps he was busy and did not spend a whole lot of time working on the bill. I cannot speak for the member but I know he does a good job for his constituents.

I do want to know one thing from the member. The member is concerned about the jurisdiction the minister would have in terms of being able to say to an individual that he or she is not welcome in Canada and about the minister being granted the authority to do so. I have indicated that it will be stated clearly in the legislation how that will work.

In October 2011, the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous motion demanding that the federal government deny entry into Canada of Abdur Green and Hamza Tzortzis due to their comments encouraging hate and violence against women and homosexuals. Currently, the minister has no jurisdiction to deny or fulfill that request from the assembly. Does the member believe that the minister should or should not have that kind of jurisdiction to be able to deny these types of individuals access to our country?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having served in the RCMP for over 18 years, I know the challenges the RCMP and any police force face in serving and protecting Canadians, especially in the streets, against the day-to-day activities of criminals.

I am going to ask a very simple question. I hope my colleague from across the floor can answer it. We have heard that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and Victims of Violence are among many organizations that support Bill C-43.

I am going to ask the hon. member a very clear and simple question. Yes or no, does the hon. member and her party support the views of these organizations on this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to start. That was a 20 minute speech that went over a vast area of immigration but said virtually nothing about Bill C-43.

The member went on to explain the ideology of the NDP in a haphazard way in terms of the direction that party would like to take, and criticizing us no doubt. It is the opposition's responsibility to criticize but it is also the opposition's responsibility to come up with alternatives, to seek amendments, to try to strengthen a piece of legislation, not simply to sit on the other side and criticize with no fundamental understanding of what the true direction should really be.

With respect to Fatemeh, the Iranian individual who is applying for refugee status, the member knows full well that deportation has been put on hold based on the system that we have that treats every individual the same. When new information is gathered, there is the opportunity for that individual or her representation to further seek relief here in Canada. To suggest in any way, shape or form that the individual has been deported is incorrect.

When we are talking about minor offences, we are talking about assault with a weapon, sexual assault, robbery, break and enter. I would really like the member to define what she sees as a minor offence of over six months that should remove someone from falling under this new legislation. The member did not mention it in her speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this important debate on Bill C-43, which the government purports will lead to the faster removal of non-citizens who commit serious offences.

I want to make it clear that as New Democrats we recognize the need for an efficient and responsive judicial approach to removing serious criminals who are not citizens.

All Canadians want a tough approach to non-citizens who commit serious, often violent, crimes in our communities. Newcomers in our communities, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding and follow the rules, would be among the first to agree with this sentiment.

I made it clear when this legislation was first introduced that as a responsible opposition, we are ready to work with the government to ensure that criminals of all backgrounds are not allowed to abuse our appeal processes.

That being said, we have serious concerns about the bill being proposed here. We are concerned about both its effectiveness in dealing with the issue of non-citizen criminality, as well as its extraordinarily wide scope. Much like the Conservatives' crime legislation before it, we worry that Bill C-43 seeks to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, running the risk of both failing to deal with a problem and trampling on rights at the same time.

The minister has trotted out five sensational examples of non-citizens who have apparently abused the IRB appeals process to stay in Canada. On their face, these seem serious and, as the opposition, we are willing to examine them to ensure the public safety of all Canadians. However, there is a real risk, as I would hope the minister would agree, with making sweeping changes based solely on extraordinary cases. It may make good headlines and flashy press conferences, but it does not necessarily make for good public policy.

I must also point out that there are elements in the bill that seem to have merit and are worth further study. For example, Bill C-43 recognizes that entering Canada with the assistance of someone involved in organized criminal activity is not in itself adequate to determine inadmissibility. We think this makes good sense.

I have to say that I am a bit amazed that after an omnibus refugee reform bill and dozens of regulatory changes, the government did not make this change earlier. New Democrats have long called for better legislation to ensure that victims of trafficking are not caught up in rules intended to catch traffickers.

Additionally, we think it is reasonable to put people who are inadmissible on the grounds of security under conditions even when they are not detained. Again, we think these measures in Bill C-43 require much more study and scrutiny.

What are our main concerns with the substance of the legislation being proposed? First, we are concerned about yet another piece of government legislation that seeks to concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister. For example, Bill C-43 grants sweeping new powers to the minister to ban a foreign national from entering, leaving or being admissible, based on ambiguous public policy considerations. The last thing our immigration system needs is to be even more politicized than it already is.

The reality is that we have a good, independent system for determining admissibility and we do not need it to be replaced by the whim of the minister. The minister should not be able to keep out people who simply disagree with the government. In fact, it is ridiculous to believe that giving the immigration minister more power will solve anything at all.

On this side of the House, we believe that strengthening the independent judicial process is a better way to close a perceived loophole for criminals than concentrating yet more powers with the minister.

Our second major concern is the change in the definition of serious criminality under this legislation. Previously, serious criminality was defined as a crime subject to a sentence of two years or more. The bill before us seeks to change that to a sentence of six months or more. On face value, this may seem reasonable. After all, the 2010 and 2011 statistics on sentencing show that the most common offences to be encapsulated by the new definition would be sexual assault and robbery.

The minister will get no argument from me or my NDP colleagues that these violent crimes represent serious criminality. However, here is the rub. New sentences brought in by the Conservatives' crime legislation make a whole host of non-violent crimes subject to mandatory minimums that could drastically effect how we look at this legislation. As New Democrats, we strongly support greater study on this aspect of the bill so that Canadians can fully understand the impact of this change in definition.

The third concern is that Bill C-43 would not only apply to those convicted of serious crimes in Canada, but also abroad. While Canada is not perfect, it boasts one of the fairest judicial systems anywhere in the world. Other countries are not so lucky. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions around the world simply being a member of an opposition party can get someone convicted of a serious crime. These cases, more than any other, highlight the need for due process before the law. We must make sure that Canada remains a welcoming beacon of hope for those fleeing persecution abroad.

Professionals who work with immigrants and refugees, as well as the diaspora groups, have also raised concerns that this legislation could unfairly punish the young and mentally ill. Again, a robust study at the committee level must ensure we get answers to these perplexing questions. We must ensure that no consequences, unintended or otherwise, hurt the most vulnerable among us.

Another troubling feature for us in the bill is that the bill relieves the minister of the responsibility to examine humanitarian circumstances, taking into account the interests of children affected. In our view, ignoring the interests of children is not something the minister should be relieved of.

Perhaps the biggest concern the official opposition has with the legislation is that it is an attempt to turn the channel away from the other sweeping changes the minister is making to our immigration system. We worry that this is yet another attempt to vilify permanent residents in the minds of Canadians, focusing almost exclusive attention on a tiny minority to create the impression that newcomer communities are rife with cheats, queue-jumpers and criminals. This simply is not the case. The NDP stands with newcomers who want the government to focus on making the immigration system fairer and more accountable for the vast majority who do not commit crimes and who follow the rules.

The reality is that the Conservative government's radical overhaul of Canada's immigration and refugee system is turning us into a less welcoming country. These changes limit the possibility of newcomers to reunite with their families and stifle attempts to build stronger communities. Canada was built by the hard work of newcomers from all over the world and this continues to be the case. New waves of immigration are helping build thriving communities and a 21st century workforce. Unfortunately, instead of welcoming skilled immigrants and addressing Canada's long-term needs, the Conservative government is prioritizing temporary work visas to help big business pay lower wages. This is not how we built our country and it will not be the way to build the economy of the future.

The Conservatives have increased the number of temporary foreign workers by almost 200% while allowing employers to pay them 15% less than a Canadian worker would earn. These workers come here alone. They are not allowed to bring their families. After sending money back home, they themselves are forced to go back home. This does not build communities. One would think that if someone were good enough to work in Canada they would be good enough to stay, but not under the Conservative government.

Last week in question period I highlighted a recent report that points to shocking negligence on the part of the federal government in protecting migrant workers. Too often they are subject to systemic abuse due to federal immigration laws and provincial labour standards. At the same time, the government has pressed the delete button on more than 280,000 potential new Canadians in the skilled worker backlog. These are folks who have followed the rules and whose skills Canada's economy desperately needs.

In the 2011 election, the member for Calgary Southeast cleverly courted ethnic and cultural communities by learning and reciting greetings in a myriad of languages. He showed up at many functions and promised a kinder and gentler immigration policy. However, after the Conservatives won their coveted parliamentary majority, the Conservative message has been the same no matter what language one speaks: newcomers have little value outside of being economic units for cheap temporary labour. This is wrong.

In addition to being my party's critic for immigration, I am also a spokesperson for multiculturalism. It is a responsibility I take very seriously. I am honoured to represent Newton—North Delta, one of the most diverse ridings in the country. In addition to hard-working people who have called Canada home for many generations, it is blessed to have newcomers from all over the world who make our communities stronger, immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Philippines, China, Asia and all over Europe, just to name a few. All of them tell me their number one priority is to reunite with their families and build strong communities. They came to Canada with the hope of a better future and under the promise that they could eventually bring their families.

Unfortunately, the government has systematically dismantled the family reunification provisions of Canada's immigration system, including making it harder for spouses to become permanent residents. It has also stopped applications for parents and grandparents, preventing them from being reunited with their children and grandchildren. Many grandparents now pass away before they can come to Canada and hold their grandchildren in their arms for the first time. This is more than political for me, it is very personal. I am saddened by the direction the government is taking us in. I was fortunate to come to this country, bring my family and contribute to my community, but I wonder if my story is even possible under the Conservative changes.

Another issue of great concern to the people in my riding and right across the country is the arbitrary rejection of visitor visas. The rejection rate is huge and many in my riding have had their families prevented from attending weddings and, yes, even funerals. Many are given no reason and have no chance to appeal these decisions. I only wish the government would spend half as much time making our visitor visa system fair as it does on bills like the one we are discussing today.

I also want to address this bill in the larger context of the sweeping and mean-spirited changes the government has introduced to our refugee system, in particular changes to the interim federal health program. Last spring, with much fanfare, the government announced that it would cut health coverage to vulnerable refugee claimants. Backbench MPs on the other side have even sent ten percenter mailings home declaring an end to gold-plated coverage for refugees, but the reality is far less pretty.

The move effectively denies access to health care to many legitimate refugees whose families have limited or no financial means. Canada was built on the idea that we all have a responsibility to take care of one another, especially the vulnerable, but the Conservative government is targeting this very basic Canadian value. Frankly, it is unconscionable to think that my colleagues across the floor would deny refugees the basic right of health care, but there we have it. They are playing politics with people's lives.

The cuts to health care in the bill we are debating today are not the only drastic changes the government is making to refugee policy. Last week we learned that Fatemeh Tosarvanda, an Iranian woman in Canada, is facing imminent deportation despite evidence proving she faces adultery charges in Iran that, under Sharia law, could result in her being stoned to death. Under the Conservatives' draconian refugee reform package, all refugee claimants are now banned from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment within a year of receiving a negative answer on their claim, but the assessment is a second chance to consider whether it is truly safe to send a rejected claimant like Fatemeh back.

While considering this legislation, I would urge all of my colleagues to look at the bigger picture. We all want to protect our communities from criminal activity. My riding has seen first-hand the terror inflicted by guns, gangs and violence. However, we need to take a balanced approach, one that deals seriously with criminals and also creates the opportunities and hope that stops crime before it starts.

This summer it was revealed that the Conservative government is cutting 20% of federal funding for youth justice programs in Canada. It is cutting over $35 million used to supervise and rehabilitate young offenders. What kind of a crime prevention strategy is that?

Furthermore, the government is failing to deliver on its promise to put more police on the streets in our vulnerable communities. In my province of B.C., 42 staff who supported the work of the RCMP have received notices stating that they could lose their jobs. Cutting people who help our front-line police officers is no way to prevent crime and make our communities safer.

We must ask ourselves why the government is not focusing on making our communities safe from criminals of all backgrounds rather than focusing so much attention on demonizing newcomers.

When it comes to the legislation before the House today, I strongly believe that we can prevent non-citizens who commit serious crimes from abusing our appeal processes without trampling on their rights. I am willing to work with the government to ensure a balanced approach. My New Democrat colleagues and I stand firmly with newcomers, who think we should focus more time and legislative effort to make sure the immigration system is faster and fairer for those who do not commit crimes.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the vast majority of newcomers follow the rules and they deserve the House's attention. It is time for the government to treat immigrants as the nation builders that they are and offer them a fairer, easier way to be reunited with their loved ones. Unfortunately, too much time and too many press conferences are being dedicated to creating a false impression of Canada's diverse newcomer community.

Bill C-43 is another wide-ranging bill that covers a huge number of issues. We had hoped to see the end of bills made up to change the channel in favour of a better thought-out bill by the minister.

Since I have come to Parliament I have seen a myriad of changes. It seems almost on a weekly basis there are changes to regulations and there are new bills. What we need is a coherent, fair, equitable and transparent immigration policy that would help us to build on the strengths that newcomers bring to us, not this haphazard approach.

Let us carefully consider this legislation but let us also refocus our efforts on making Canada the welcoming, compassionate place that it once was and can be again.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member quite rightly points out that Australia is a country that has gone through some similar circumstances to what we have faced.

Our proposals, although tough and fair, compared to those of countries like New Zealand and Australia are very fair and moderate. However, those countries have already implemented their proposals. They are already on that course to ensure the safety of their citizens.

This bill merely takes the same actions they have taken. As we work through our immigration legislation, each and every part of the immigration system is going to be improved. Bill C-43 gets at that very important aspect of foreign criminals who want to gain access to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a little time to talk about Bill C-43.

As the House and this country are aware, there are two fundamental propositions that we are working through and objectives that we would complete over the next period of time with respect to immigration.

First, from an immigration perspective, there is the aspect of ensuring that our backlogs are reduced to such an extent that they no longer pose an issue or problem with respect to driving Canada's economy. We stated very clearly in the budget bill of this spring and early summer that one of the economic drivers for this country over the next decade was going to be a focus on immigration and ensuring that we will bring into the country those with the skill sets necessary to work in this country where those jobs cannot be filled by Canadians. This would enable this country to move quickly, from an economic perspective, to ensure that when companies across this country are moving forward and cannot find those to do the work, we are able to access those skill sets in a very quick and expedited fashion

We know that the previous government cared little about these factors with respect to the economy. We have made it clear that our number one objective is to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong and use immigration to drive the vehicle of the economy.

The second piece on immigration is to ensure security so that our system is not taken advantage of and can be trusted. Most importantly, we would have an immigration system that protects Canadians. It would ensure that victimization through immigration fraud or criminal activity would be halted immediately. Those individuals who are not Canadian citizens would face deportation from this country, based on illegal acts that they have committed.

Our Conservative government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. In fact, our platform of 2011 promised to expedite the deportation of foreign criminals. Our government has followed up on that promise by introducing Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

We are a generous and welcoming people. We also have no tolerance for criminals and fraudsters who abuse Canada's generosity. This proposed legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals to delay their removal during which they can continue to commit crimes and victimize Canadians. Our message to foreign criminals is very clear. They are not welcome in our country.

The faster removal of foreign criminals act focuses on three areas. One, it would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. Two, it would make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. Three, it would remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada to enjoy our hospitality and the beauty of this country.

I would like to expand on the first area in terms of making it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country.

We would lower the current threshold to bar access to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminality from a minimum sentence requirement of two years to a sentence of six months.

We have all witnessed on a regular basis serious crimes that receive a minimum penalty, whether by judge or jury, of a minimum of two years. However, we have noticed across the country that courts are often using two years less a day to penalize individuals for their crime. At the same time it obviously changes the aspect of that criminal conviction, because it is less than two years, and therefore the scope of the current legislation does not allow us to pursue those individuals for the purpose of getting them out of the country and deporting them. Therefore, we would lower that threshold of two years down to six months for acts of serious criminality.

We also will bar those who are convicted of an offence or committed an act outside Canada, which, if committed in Canada, would carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years. If individuals commit a crime in another country and its equivalent is a maximum penalty of 10 years if committed here in Canada, we will ensure they are not welcome here and will not participate in Canada's democracy because they have not earned the right to do so based on the crime for which they have been convicted.

We will restrict access to humanitarian and compassionate consideration for foreign nationals who are inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international human rights violations, or organized criminality. We also will clarify that the Minister of Public Safety may only take public safety and national security considerations into account when examining an application for ministerial relief. We will get specific in terms of what a minister, whether of public safety or citizenship and immigration, can do in terms of making a decision on his or her own.

We will deny temporary resident status to foreign nationals who have a non-accompanying family member who is inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality. When an organized criminal gets caught in his or her country, is charged, is convicted and we see family members of that individual fleeing because they know they are next or that they face potential criminal investigation themselves, no longer will they have the ability to come into this country.

If a terrorist regime in another country has been brought down, as we have seen over the past year, and the leaders of that terrorist regime or their families attempt to come here to Canada, they will no longer have the right to do so based on their attachment to the criminality and to the rights violations committed in their country of origin.

We will increase the consequence for misrepresentation from a two-year inadmissibility to a five-year inadmissibility and, in addition, ban such individuals from applying for permanent resident status within those five years. If there is one thing I have noticed in my close to four years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is that time and time again we have bogus applications coming from other countries simply because some individuals lie on their application, misrepresent their situation, misrepresent their family or misrepresent the reason upon which they are applying for permanent resident status in Canada, whether that be through the normal procedures available or whether it be by refugee status. Therefore, if bogus refugees who want to come to this country misrepresent themselves or basically lie on their application, they will face a five-year inadmissibility penalty instead of a two-year penalty. It also would allow the ministry to ensure that these individuals who have misrepresented themselves cannot apply for permanent residency here in Canada for up to five years during that ban.

We are ensuring that we will make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country.

On the second point, we will make it harder for those who pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place.

As I mentioned, we will ensure that our system is modernized and that it meets the standard upon which we should have those coming to this country be allowed to enter into Canada. We will ensure that eligible individuals could file an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division only if sentenced to less than six months imprisonment in Canada. For example, permanent residents sentenced to 11 months in jail for sexual assault would no longer be eligible to appeal a removal order. They would be removed.

A new bar would be added so that those with a foreign conviction or who committed an act outside of Canada carrying a maximum sentence of at least 10 years in Canada could no longer access the Immigration Appeal Division as well. Clearly this would be an expedited process. If individuals have been convicted of a serious crime in this country or a comparable crime in their country of origin, they will not have the appeal, after appeal mechanism that so many of these criminals have had in the past. That will not exist any more. They will have the right to an appeal but it will be one appeal, it will be quick, fair and, upon the decision of that appeal, it will obviously carry the consequences which will be carried out once that decision is made.

Foreign nationals inadmissible on the most serious grounds of security, human international rights violations or organized criminality will no longer be able to apply under the humanitarian and compassionate provisions. A war criminal would be ineligible to request humanitarian and compassionate considerations as a way to delay removal or remain in Canada permanently.

The legislation would also codify the court's decision. The Minister of Public Safety could only take national security and public safety factors into consideration and not factors such as humanitarian and compassionate when deciding to grant a request for relief from inadmissibility. It would have to be on the grounds of security, certain human international rights violations or organized criminality.

There would also be a new authority that would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deny temporary residence status for up to three years on the basis of public policy considerations. For example, the minister could use the authority in the case of a foreign national who promotes violence against a religious group. This will not happen very often but it does not exist in the legislation today which would give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism the authority to disallow someone to enter Canada based upon, for example, as I stated, that the person would be promoting violence against a religious group in his or her own country of origin or internationally.

Foreign nationals would be inadmissible to visit Canada if the foreign national has a family member accompanying them, or not accompanying them, who is inadmissible on the grounds of security, human international rights violations or organized criminality. For example, the spouse of a person who is inadmissible for war crimes would be inadmissible even when the spouse is travelling to Canada alone.

When we look at those two examples, we can see that the focus that we are taking as a government, that we committed to in the last election and are implementing under Bill C-43, would make it extremely difficult for those who do not meet the standards of immigration here in this country to gain access to the country, to gain permanent residence and, eventually, to gain Canadian citizenship.

However, we also believe it is important that we remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to this country. We would make it easier for those who are of no risk or those who are of low risk to get into Canada. For example, low-risk foreign nationals would be admissible for temporary entry into Canada when travelling with a family member who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, health, finance misrepresentation or non-compliance.

Therefore, a parent who is inadmissible on health grounds would remain inadmissible and require a temporary resident permit to visit Canada. However, the remaining family members would actually now be admissible. Under the current legislation, that is not the case. If an individual, for health reasons, is unable to be granted a temporary visa, his or her family is not granted a visa to come here. We will make that change.

Inadmissible persons seeking ministerial relief would need to submit a formal application. The minister's authority to grant relief on his or her own initiative without a formal application will be explicitly spelled out in the act. The minister could use this explicit authority to facilitate the entry of a head of state who would otherwise be found inadmissible if the minister were satisfied that the decision was not contrary to national interests. There are those from other countries currently who are in positions of government or leadership who, based on the current grounds of our law, would be inadmissible to come into Canada. This would allow the minister some flexibility, so to speak, to grant the individual the right to come here to Canada to do his or her work.

Foreign nationals or permanent residents are inadmissible on the grounds of security for any act of espionage against Canada, contrary to the interest of Canada. That part simply will not change.

As members can hear, the position the government has taken is to be tough, to be fair and to update an act that is in need of update. It does not take much for us to find examples from across the country over the past number of years of individuals who have been able to take advantage of our system or to, quite simply, beat our system as it currently is structured.

I will point to a couple of cases because they clearly illustrate the problem that we have and the corrective action that is necessary.

Jackie Tran, whose country of origin is Vietnam, committed the following crimes: assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. The sentences ranged in length from a $100 fine to two years less a day imprisonment. Did he appeal? Absolutely, he appealed. His removal order was completed in April 2004 but his removal actually took place in March 2010. For nearly six years, that individual took advantage of our system, used every appeal mechanism available to him and remained in this country. There are those who are in this process as we speak and who have again, while appealing to stay here in Canada, committed crimes.

Patrick De Florimonte from Guyana has been charged with multiple assaults with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, multiple counts of theft, of drug possession, of drug trafficking and of failure to comply with court orders. His removal order was in October 2007. I stand here today and tell the House that that individual has not yet been removed from the country due to four and a half years of delay and running from his responsibilities. He is potentially committing crimes yet again in the country.

Gheorghe Capra has over 60 counts of fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstructing a peace officer and failure to comply with court orders. His sentences ranged from two days to two years less a day. His removal order was September 2003. He was removed on January 2009 due to six years of appeal after appeal, not to mention the cost that we face in terms of moving through this process with these individuals.

Cesar Guzman was charged with the sexual assault of a senior citizen. He served 18 months in jail. His removal order was in May 2007. He was removed in April 2011 due to nearly four years of delay.

I could go on. There are example after example that are available to me and to anyone who wants to get a clear understanding of what has happened with this system over the past number of years and why it needs to change. It was by no accident that this policy, this platform, this legislation was included in the 2011 platform that we were elected on and the reason we are introducing it and carrying it through to second reading to get this bill to committee to be studied, then to have it come back to the House to be passed, then sent to the Senate for Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that we can put a stop to these types of examples that take advantage of our system, victimize people in our country and make a mockery of our system for those from other countries who believe that we can simply be taken advantage of. That will not occur anymore.

We have person after person who support this. Deputy chief, Warren Lemcke, of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports this bill and feels that it would help make Canadians and those who legitimately enter Canada safer.

The Canadian Police Association stated, ”This ensures that public safety is one of the considerations with respect to admissibility. To Canada, this is a clear step in the right direction”.

I have page after page of those who support this legislation.

I do not think this should take too long at committee. Rather, it should move through committee very quickly. It is clear that this is not an issue of partisanship. This is an issue of fairness and of treating those who want to take advantage of our system in the way that they should be treated. It is ensuring that it is fair to victims and to Canadians who would suffer as a result of these individuals being in Canada.

The opposition has already made comments. Both of our critics have made comments about the legislation. The government and I think that when a bill goes to committee it can always be improved. There is no question about it. However, they should be supporting the bill. If members want to make amendments that improve the bill, we will study them and look at them, but at the end of the day it is a bill that makes sense and it is one that has the overwhelming support of Canadians across the country. I look forward to it moving to committee.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Special Committee on Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to express my strong opposition for Motion No. 312. I am strongly opposed to this motion based on my own personal convictions, but dozens of my constituents have also asked me to oppose it because they are concerned. While I am honoured to speak today, I am very disappointed that I am addressing the House about an issue that most Canadians thought was completely closed. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre wants to reopen a debate on an issue that we thought had been resolved for many years. It seems that he wants to try to break the social peace that has settled over this country. He brought forward a motion that reads as follows:

That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

The motion also sets out the composition of and powers given to the committee.

I would first like to clarify certain statements that the hon. member for Kitchener Centre made in the speech he gave during the first hour of debate and other speeches.

The definition dates back to 1892 and not to the 17th century, as he led us to believe. Many of our laws were sanctioned in the early years of our federation and they are still in effect and still relevant to the governance of the country. He also said that abortions were done in the third trimester, more specifically that there were no rights to protect the fetus in the third trimester. I would like to remind the hon. member that 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. Only 0.3% of abortions are done after the 20th week, and most of those are done for quasi-medical reasons or when the mother's health is in jeopardy.

I would also like to mention to my colleague that abortions are down by an average of 1% per year. So, it is not true that fetuses are being aborted during the third trimester. The Conservatives are twisting the facts to justify their ideologies. Canadians have the right to have the real facts rather than twisted ones.

As I said earlier, in the mind of Canadians, this debate has been closed for many years, following many Supreme Court decisions. It is up to Parliament to make legislation, but it is the responsibility of the courts to review the legislation and to make sure that it is consistent with our Constitution and the individual rights that we all enjoy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is important to know the political and legal history behind this debate. Let me quickly go over the facts to refresh the memory of the hon. members opposite, in case they may have forgotten them. In 1988, the Morgentaler decision held that the Criminal Code provisions on abortion were unconstitutional. They violate section 7 of the Charter.

After the 1988 Morgentaler decision, a number of provinces tried to restrict access to abortion by using the health care system in terms of reimbursing costs. They prohibited abortions that were not performed in public hospitals by not paying for abortion fees. In the Morgentaler decisions against the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Quebec, courts ruled in all cases that the provinces’ attempts to restrict abortion were contrary to the Charter.

All of these decisions always focused on a woman's inalienable rights concerning her body. However, as my colleague from Gatineau mentioned in a passionate speech, there was a fundamental aspect missing from the speech by the member for Kitchener Centre: a woman's right to control her own body. This right is included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the member for Kitchener Centre seems to have completely forgotten that, or simply ignored it. The member said that he wants a study in good faith on the issue and that the definition in section 223 of the Criminal Code is dishonest.

Let us talk about honesty in speeches and statements. The member for Kitchener Centre said:

Motion No. 312 simply calls for a study of the evidence about when a child becomes a human being. It does not propose any answer to that question. In fact, it directs the committee to make no decision and no recommendation but merely to report options.

However, the Chief Government Whip said:

...the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage.

The member for Ktichener Centre also indicated in an interview with Metro Ottawa published on April 26, 2012, that if we reach a conclusion on when a child becomes a human being then all of the other issues that are so complicated about abortion can be discussed with that honest conclusion as a bedrock foundation. Either the member is contradicting himself, or else the member for Kitchener Centre is hiding his real desire to turn women who have abortions into criminals. So, the member should be careful when he talks about honesty.

The Conservative Party does not have a good record on this issue. The Conservatives have been trying to criminalize abortion for a long time. The Mulroney government introduced Bill C-43 in order to criminalize abortion, but fortunately it was defeated at third reading.

In 2004, the then leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, said that the first Conservative government would not be interested in reopening the abortion issue.

In 2008, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park tried to create a loophole for the criminalization of abortion by introducing Bill C-484, which would have made the murder of a pregnant woman a double homicide. Almost every Conservative, including the Prime Minister, voted for the bill.

In 2010, when the Muskoka Initiative for maternal health was launched by the G8, the Prime minister imposed a moratorium on funding for projects involving abortion in the developing world. Still in 2010, the member for Winnipeg South introduced Bill C-510, which would have made it an offence to coerce a woman to have an abortion.

In 2011, the Prime Minister reiterated this promise with the assurance that his party would not reopen the abortion debate. We know what happened: a member moved a motion with the ultimate goal of restricting access to abortion. One cannot help but wonder about the Conservative Party's ability to be consistent. The Prime Minister seems to have difficulty keeping the more extremist elements of his party in line with his position to not reopen the debate. In any case, the Conservative Party cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting women's rights.

How many times will the Conservatives try to reopen this debate? The Conservative ideology believes that the government should be as small as possible and that it should not interfere in the private lives of people, as demonstrated by its position on the firearms registry.

Strangely enough, this does not seem to apply when it comes to defending the rights and equality of women. If such a motion is accepted by the House, it could lead to the criminalization of abortion, which is completely unacceptable. Criminalizing abortions will not stop women from having them, even if that means having them in conditions that could jeopardize their health and life, not to mention the criminal prosecution that could follow.

Let us look at the example of the United States, where abortion is now severely limited. Women have to travel hundreds of kilometres to have access to this procedure. They have to use their rent and food money to pay for it and they have to go to judges to get permission. When they go to the clinic, they have to listen to anti-abortion propaganda and push their way past violent and aggressive anti-choice activists. They sometimes even have to wait for hours in their cars in the clinic parking lot because of a bomb threat, which is a frequent occurrence. All this to say that most women will do whatever it takes to have access to this procedure, regardless of the difficulty or risk involved.

Is this really the type of society that we want? Do we want to take such a big step backward? Women have fought for decades to assert their individual rights and to protect their safety and security.

We must never impose our beliefs and opinions on others. Members of the Conservative Party may never have to resort to abortion, and I fully respect their positions and their beliefs, but they should never judge women who do resort to abortion, nor should they attempt to take that right away.

Members of the New Democratic Party strongly oppose this motion, which is a direct attack on women's right to choose. The Conservative government, which now has a majority, is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. We want the Prime Minister to keep the promise he made to Canadians during the most recent election campaigns and to put a stop to these regressive debates. Abortion must remain a matter between a consenting woman and her doctor.

In closing, I am confident that the NDP members will unanimously oppose this motion.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me formally welcome back all hon. members to the House of Commons from their productive summers in their ridings, which I trust they had, working with and listening to constituents.

On the government side of the House, we heard loud and clear that the priority of Canadians remains the economy. It is our priority too. Not one person raised with me a desire to see a $21 billion carbon tax implemented to raise the price of gas, groceries and winter heat. I do not expect the member will see that in our agenda.

I also want to extend a warm welcome, on behalf of Conservatives, to this year's class of pages. I am certain that their time with us, here in our hard-working, productive and, I hope, orderly House of Commons, will lead to lifelong memories.

Yesterday, we were able to pass Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, at second reading. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation on that.

I am optimistic that we will see similar co-operation to allow us to finish second reading debate tomorrow on Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about.

This afternoon, of course, is the conclusion of the New Democrats' opposition day. As announced earlier this week, Tuesday will be a Liberal opposition day.

On Monday, the House will start debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals relying on endless appeals in order to delay their removal from Canada and it sends a strong signal to foreign criminals that Canada is not a safe haven. I hope we will have support from the opposition parties for rapid passage of the bill designed to make our communities safer.

Starting on Wednesday, the House will debate Bill C-44, the helping families in need act. Once the opposition caucuses have met to discuss this important bill, I am confident they would want to support the early passage of this legislation as well. It would enhance the income support provided to families whose children have been victims of crime or are critically ill.

If we have additional time tomorrow or next week, the House will consider Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the Defence of Canada Act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

We are interested in Bill C-21, which deals with accountability for political loans and making that consistent with the other political contribution provisions. If we have a consensus among parties to bring that forward, we will certainly do that.

Similarly, if we can see a consensus among parties on passing Bill C-32 as it has been presented to the House, we would be pleased to do that on unanimous consent.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, for too long, too many convicted serious foreign criminals have been able to delay their deportation from Canada for years. These people have abused the privilege of being in Canada by committing a serious crime, having been found guilty by a Canadian court of law. Because of a loophole created by the previous Liberal government, they have been able to make appeal after appeal of their deportation, sometimes for as long as a decade or more, and too many of them have gone on to victimize other Canadians.

That will stop with the adoption of Bill C-43. The faster removal of foreign criminals act would close the loophole and shut the door on unnecessary—

Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)