Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[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—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order. Stop the clock.

As you know, I try to have a policy in this committee that we don't berate witnesses. Even though he's the minister and there is a certain political latitude, he is our guest, and we are honourable ladies and gentlemen. I hope that you will act as an honourable gentleman.

Go ahead, Mr. Dykstra.

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

You took care of my point of order.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Carry on, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that the minister might be a little sensitive about this and that members of the committee might be sensitive about this, but these are the types of expressions we hear within our caucus and from individuals who have come before the committee itself.

The minister has taken it upon himself to have a great deal more power. The simple question is how these cases will be flagged and brought to the minister's attention. There are new powers to the minister to prevent entry. What will be the checks and balances on the minister when he has this discretionary power? What is he actually putting in place? He has the ability to have the power to deny someone access.

He makes reference to a dictator. He doesn't want the dictator's wife to be able to come. What about the mother who has two children, one living in Canada as a Canadian citizen, another living in Chandigarh or the Philippines, whose spouse might be affiliated with organized crime? She is going to be labelled and told that she can't come to Canada because of her family member's behaviour, even if she is in a country where divorce might not necessarily be allowed. These are the ramifications of this legislation for real people. It's not just the rapists and murderers and so forth.

Did the minister take that into consideration before he labelled the bill? Why did he call it “foreign criminals” as opposed to “permanent residents” in the legislation? Wording is important. This minister has consistently chosen strong wording to send a message. The message isn't always positive. In the short term, you might be able to get the types of headlines you want, but it can be very damaging to the community as a whole.

I would ask him to provide comment in what little time is left.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I'll tell you what's damaging to communities, Mr. Chair. It's criminals who victimize Canadians. It is true that new Canadians are disproportionately the victims of crime committed by foreign criminals. That is why, as I mentioned, I announced the commitment to introduce this legislation, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, in Vancouver's Chinatown in front of an ethnocultural media committee. That's probably also why my party received 42% of the support of new Canadians in the last election. New Canadians know that what we've just heard from Mr. Lamoureux is insulting. This notion that in dealing with foreign criminals we are somehow reflecting on the good faith and the law-abiding nature of the vast majority of immigrants to Canada is absurd.

Speaking of inflammatory language, Mr. Lamoureux knows perfectly well that to suggest that this government is anti-immigrant—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It is.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

—is bizarre.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's not true.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

This is a government that has admitted over 1.8 million permanent residents since coming to office. It has welcomed some 1.3 million of them into Canadian citizenship. It has maintained the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history and the highest per capita levels of immigration in the developed world. It is increasing the number of resettled refugees we accept by 20% and it has increased support for them. It has tripled federal investment in settlement services and has taken real action to help with credential recognition.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons this government received a majority mandate disproportionately from new Canadians is that it is the most pro-immigration government in Canadian history. I know it doesn't suit the narrow political agenda of Mr. Lamoureux, but the truth is this: new Canadians are intolerant of those who abuse this country's generosity by violating the privilege of residency in Canada by committing serious crimes. They believe that people should get their day in court, but should not be able to delay their deportation for several years.

I would ask Mr. Lamoureux to think for a moment about the victims of these crimes. He somehow suggests that the examples we have cited are aberrations. Sadly, they're not. He raises the canard of someone convicted of possessing six marijuana plants, but he forgets to add, “with the intention of trafficking”. I admit, Mr. Chair, that Parliament decided that if you are found by a criminal court to intend to traffic narcotics, to traffic illegal drugs, in Canada, that should carry a serious penalty of six months or more. Why? Because that's not done in isolation. It's typically an indication of involvement in organized criminality. An example is Jackie Tran in Calgary, who we removed after years of delay through the IAD appeal. He had people working for him who were cultivating marijuana plants—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid I've got to call you.

I'm going to ask all members of the committee—this meeting has become very adversarial, and I think members are entitled to ask questions of the.... Yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Lamoureux. This committee is entitled to ask questions of explanation of the bill. I don't want to hear too much more of this—you know, the Conservatives are better than the Liberals, or the Liberals are better than the Conservatives, are better than the NDP. It's not helpful.

If you get my point, it's taken a bad turn.

Go ahead, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Kenney and officials, for being here today.

I have to tell you that I come from a very diverse riding in Scarborough Centre, part of the GTA, and I can tell you that the policies that we're making within your department are resonating with my constituents. They would never think for a moment that this bill is anti-immigrant. They actually believe it's anti-criminal, and they come back to me every day with e-mails and letters saying that it's about time. So I applaud the changes that are in this bill and I thank you for bringing them before this committee.

I just listened to your opening remarks, Minister Kenney, and I'm very glad you highlighted the definition of serious criminality that's currently in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. Serious criminality is defined as being convicted of a crime punishable by six months or more. Is it not true that the changes within Bill C-43 are actually going to bring the Immigration Appeal Division in line with the rest of IRPA?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Well, yes. In fact, I would again point out that we do not propose in this legislation to change the threshold for what constitutes serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In 2002 the previous Liberal government adopted IRPA, and at the time stated in the law that serious criminality was defined as those sentenced to a penalty of six months or more, or who were sentenced to a crime that could carry a maximum sentence of ten years or more.

However, in order I think to satisfy the immigration lawyers, they decided to allow for a delay tactic through an appeal to the IRB's Immigration Appeal Division. That delay tactic, and then a subsequent application for judicial review to the Federal Court, allows for foreign criminals convicted of serious crimes to delay removal by an average of two and a half to three years. That's two and a half to three years of time during which that foreign national, who has already been convicted of a serious crime by a fair Canadian court, can go on to commit additional crimes.

I think we have an obligation to the Canadian public to do everything we reasonably can within the law to prevent the opportunity for them to re-victimize new Canadians, and that's the premise of what we're doing. So yes, this does bring it into a sort of coherence with what I think is the basic framework of IRPA in terms of serious criminality.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Now, you said that they allowed a delay tactic. I understand that IRPA was actually brought in by the Liberals back in 2002—correct me if I'm wrong—and when you say they allowed a delay tactic...do you know why the Liberals would have put in this timeframe for this particular piece, different from the rest of IRPA at that time? What would be—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Well, I do know that at the time, former Minister Elinor Caplan was under massive pressure from victims organizations and police organizations because of the Just Desserts murders, where certain violent convicted foreign nationals, while delaying their deportation from Canada, had shot up a Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto claiming I forget how many victims. So there was a great public demand to do what we are now proposing, to streamline the appeals process so that we could more quickly remove foreign criminals.

But then there was a huge counter-lobby from the immigration lawyers, and as we've just heard from Mr. Lamoureux, they were typically an interest group, a special interest strongly supportive of the last government. I think they persuaded Minister Caplan to include this ability to appeal to the IAD for foreign nationals who receive convictions of between six months and two years.

Let me point out that many courts have actually given foreign nationals sentences of two years less a day, with what is pretty clearly the expressed intent of allowing them access to this appeals process. That is to say that someone who might otherwise have received a longer sentence is actually given a lighter sentence precisely so they can delay their removal from Canada. This has actually had, I think, a negative influence on strict sentencing for foreign criminals convicted of serious crimes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

During second reading debate, I listened to much of what was being said by both the NDP and the Liberal MPs who spoke on this bill. They actually claimed that the number of serious criminals appealing to the Immigration Appeal Division each year was very small. Of course, they didn't define what very small meant and they didn't come with any facts or figures or statistics.

When I think of small, I think of a handful. I think if it were only a handful, Canadians should not be that concerned. I'm just wondering if you're able to provide any facts or statistics over the last number of years of what the actual numbers are. I know for sure that if it's greater than... I mean, if it's greater than 25, to me, that's outrageous. If it's greater than 100, I'm sure most Canadians would be concerned if that was the case.

If you could please tell us if you have those facts with you today....

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

In terms of numbers, if you were the immediate family member of the late Toronto Police Constable Todd Baylis, one is too many. I find this idea of minimizing the issue ignores the suffering of the victims of repeat crime from these individuals, delaying their deportation.

In terms of the actual numbers, we have in the last few years averaged 850 appeals to the IAD by foreign nationals who have received serious convictions under IRPA. There are currently 2,700 pending for the IAD, and it takes about 18 months for an IAD appeal to be heard and decided.

Let's put this in perspective. As I said earlier, this is a tiny fraction of the overall number of immigrants. I mean, 850 immigrants out of let's say a quarter of a million is about .03%. It's a fraction of a percent, which is why I find so offensive the notion that we're hearing from some members to conflate this tiny fraction of criminals with the enormous majority of law-abiding immigrants. I think that's profoundly offensive. On the other hand, I think 850 a year is a significant number.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do you think, Minister Kenney, that Canadians—who may be tuning into this committee or who may hear about it at some point in the future—on a whole would think that 850 is a very small number, or do you think they are going to feel like I do right now: shocked at that particular figure you just gave?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Well, I suspect they would say, “Why is there one?”

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

I apologize to my colleague, but I must raise a point of personal privilege before we continue.

I am profoundly offended by the comments made by the member opposite as well as the minister. I myself have been a victim of crime by somebody who was a permanent resident at the time. I'm profoundly offended when the minister says that all of us in the NDP caucus do not understand the needs of victims and don't look at victims of crime.

It's a point of personal privilege. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask you to ask the member or the minister to withdraw that statement from the record, please, because I am profoundly, personally offended by that comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

As you may or may not know, I don't have the right to rule on points of privilege. The committee would have to go to the Speaker on such a request. I do have the right, however, as chairman to say that some of the comments that have come from all sides.... You know, once one starts, then the other starts, and then this goes back and forth, and then the chairman has lost control of the meeting.

I don't have the right to rule on that. I will say, however, that some of the comments as to what one government did or another government did or what one party did are totally inappropriate. It only aggravates everybody and then we have a bad meeting.

I'm going to ask Madame Groguhé to proceed with her questions.

Thank you.