Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

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

It's just an addition to your comments with respect to your decision-making ability. Suffice to say, while you wouldn't have ruled in favour of Ms. Sitsabaiesan's question of personal privilege, the minister did take time to respond to her concern and did apologize.

Perhaps if Ms. Freeman could have an extra minute or so added on to her time, it would make up for the time that the minister did acknowledge and clarify exactly what his comments were.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have the floor, Ms. Freeman.

[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]

Those provisions are in the bill. As I said, we are not changing the definition of serious criminality in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In fact, paragraph 36(1)(a) of that act states that foreign nationals are guilty of serious criminality if they have been convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of 10 years or if a term of more than six months has been imposed.

So we are keeping the same definition. The only difference is that we are removing the access to the Immigration Appeal Division. It in no way affects their right of appeal in the criminal justice system.

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

I think my colleague Mr. Lamoureux touched on the question of denial of entry to Canada. Take his example of the wife of a man linked to a criminal group, who would be considered a victim and who might try to enter Canada. How would this affect that woman? Have you considered situations like that?

Mr. Lamoureux raised the question but I did not hear an answer.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

By applying the power that is proposed, we can consider extraordinary situations. But you have to remember that opposition MPs have criticized the government for granting entry to Canada to close family members of dictators like Mr. Ben Ali. So we are replying to those criticisms by providing for a power that, under exceptional cases, allows us to deny entry to Canada, for security reasons, to some foreign nationals who have links to organized crime. However, we really are talking about extraordinary situations here, I believe.

For example, if a member of Colonel Gaddafi's family had tried to enter Canada after he fell from power, this legislation would have been able to prevent it. But we do not currently have that power.

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

It is important for me to emphasize that we are giving our support to this measure as it applies to members of a family that is part of an oppressive regime, because they are often involved in the oppression. Of course, they are not the kind of people we would want to see taking refuge in Canada. But I am concerned, for example, for the spouse of someone who might be involved with the gangs in Mexico.

I hope that your guidelines will allow a degree of discretion. Are you afraid to include guidelines like that in the bill?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is exactly why we are providing some discretionary powers. It is so that we can consider exceptional cases.

For example, take the case of a mafia family. We are talking about organized crime. Frankly, I think that it is unlikely that a mafioso's family would be unaware of the criminal activity. This power would let us tell people close to a member of the mafia that they do not have the right to enter Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're well over seven minutes; I've been overly generous to you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for appearing.

I wish to explore a bit further these crimes that we talked about.

In my riding, which is predominantly 60% visible and non-visible minorities, we often encounter situations whereby the older established immigrants will prey upon the new ones, inducing them to invest in investment funds that turn out to be bogus. You and I both know the case of Mr. Tang Weizhen, who absconded with $60 million.

Could we focus more specifically on some white collar crimes, like credit card fraud, counterfeiting, investment funds that don't turn out, and the buying and selling of stolen articles? There are those white collar crimes. How would we deal with permanent residents who are preying on new immigrants?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I would point out that with serious white collar crimes—it doesn't matter whether it's sophisticated fraud or what have you—if the sentence is for six months or more, it would be defined currently under IRPA as a serious crime. That person would receive an inadmissibility report and a removal order from the CBSA. The only difference in the future is that they will no longer access the Immigration Appeal Division and subsequently the Federal Court, in order to delay deportation for several years.

I think you make a good point. We do have victims of non-violent crimes, of so-called white collar crimes. Again, as you point out, very frequently the victims are new Canadians, who, perhaps because they're not entirely familiar with Canada's legal system, or perhaps for linguistic reasons, are sometimes more vulnerable to various forms of financial fraud. I think this is an important measure to help protect those individuals.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

So the six-month sentence is across the board for all kinds of crimes.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Let me move on, then.

We mentioned our peer countries that have similar criminal codes, like the United States, or the British common law jurisdictions, like the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Are you aware of any of them having the same negative discretions in place? How do they interpret their policies? Are they broader in scope than ours, or similar? Then to follow on to that, is only a minister permitted to make those discretions, or are there also immigration officers who can make that discretion?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

In terms of the analogous power to what we propose, it's the minister's, or, in the case of the United States, the Homeland Security Secretary's.

In the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary has the power to personally order an individual excluded from the United Kingdom in cases where their presence—and this is the language—would not be “conducive to the public good”. It's very broad, isn't it? For example, this can be done on the basis of national security, foreign policy, public order, or serious criminality. The secretary does not delegate this power to other officials—does not.

In Australia, the Minister for 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 and the likelihood that an individual will promote or participate in violence in the community.

In the United States, the Secretary of State—excuse me, not the Homeland Security secretary, but the Secretary of State—may direct a consular officer to refuse a visa if necessary for U.S. foreign policy or security interests, while 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 U.S.

Let me make another point. My experience, having been a parliamentarian for 15 years, is that most Canadians, and in fact most parliamentarians, think the minister or the government already has this kind of discretion, which is why, whenever we get cases like those of some of these hate-mongers seeking to enter the country, I'm lobbied by parliamentarians and members of the public to deny their entry: because they assume that there is this sort of generalized power.

Let me finally add that, as I said in French, I'm constantly, every single day.... You all see that after question period there is a crowd that forms around my desk. I wish I could say that it's people congratulating me on my good answers, but instead, they are colleagues of ours typically asking me to grant what are called “ministerial permits”, which is the exercise of an unlimited ministerial discretion in IRPA to effectively override negative decisions by visa officers.

I hear no complaints from parliamentarians when it comes to the positive exercise of discretion, and essentially what we're proposing here is an analogous negative power of discretion, which would be used, frankly, at most, in a handful of cases each year.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Where's my clock?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Am I over...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid you're over the time, sir.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad I have another opportunity, Minister, because I want to continue with my train of thought and the questions I was asking when I ran out of time previously. I want to focus a little bit on the victims of some of these crimes.

I know that we're speaking a lot about criminals and how we want to keep out criminals and so forth, but there is an impact on society and there is an impact on families. For the parents of Constable Todd Baylis, and certainly for his fiancée and the people who loved him and cared for him, not to mention the very courageous men and women who serve in our police service, I know how much they were impacted by that tragic shooting of Todd Baylis by a man who had garnered a stolen gun.

I also want to speak a little bit about Georgina—or Vivi—Leimonis. What I was saying previously was that she was a 23-year-old and a very vibrant young lady who, at 11 o'clock in the evening, was sitting at a table in a Just Desserts restaurant having dessert and coffee with her fiancé. An argument broke out as three gentlemen—criminals, not gentlemen.... An argument broke out as three criminals walked in and wanted to rob the place. Gunfire ensued, and Vivi—Georgina's nickname—was shot some 200 times from a distance of no more than three metres. It was absolutely tragic, and it struck her and her family more than anybody else, but I can tell you that the entire community, and indeed, not only the Greek community but the entire GTA....

I'd be very interested in hearing from you, Minister, about what you've heard from victims' groups. Politicians are politicians and we can say our thing—we're supporting a bill or we're not supporting a bill—but we are representing people here, and it's the people who give us the right to have an opportunity to represent them. I'd like to know what you hear from them.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The majority of newcomers to Canada are law-abiding members of our society, and I believe that our legislation should not portray them negatively. Rather, I believe that Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the CBSA, and law enforcement should have the resources they need to keep us safe from criminals of all backgrounds.

Auditor General reports since 2000 have highlighted problems in the way our immigration laws are administered and in who actually gets into the country. Auditor General reports reveal that Canada's immigration system has problems not necessarily because of legislation flaws, but rather because of the way our laws are administered.

Reviewing Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency, the 2011 Auditor General's report showed that there is little training or formal training curriculum. Moreover, there is “little stability at the senior levels to provide [guidance] and on-the-job training”. There is also a lack of coordination of efforts between departments and no quality assurance framework or performance reviews.

Changing the law without addressing the problems currently in existence in the administration of the law is a serious concern and leaves little assurance for us and Canadians that our system will be better or more secure.

My question for you, Mr. Minister, is, how have these issues, highlighted by the Auditors General over and over again, contributed to the government's inability to track, detain, and remove serious non-citizen criminals?

[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.

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

The lack of quality assurance checks is particularly alarming. Paragraph 2.49 of the Auditor General's report reported that CBSA's senior analysts are reviewing less than one percent of the temporary resident cases.

Wouldn't a review of the decisions about people who are coming into Canada be an effective way of protecting people, especially if officers are not receiving adequate training? Instead, we're seeing this government taking away the right of appeal from permanent residents, including youth who may have spent the majority of their lives in this country, who may have grown up in this country, and the removal of whom could lead to a great judicial backlog in our country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you. On the first point I would like to refer to Mr. Hill.