Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 24th, 2012

[Peter Hill, Director General, Post-Border Programs, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you very much.

I would say at the outset that the agency takes very seriously the recommendations of the Auditor General, and we have developed management action plans to address all of those recommendations and observations of the Auditor General, including those in the area of training. I'd be happy to provide the committee with further detail on the progress the agency is making in addressing the Auditor General's requirements.

I would say that the agency's performance in the area of removals over the last five years has demonstrated significant progress in addressing some of the concerns raised by the Auditor General. Last year, for example, the agency removed 16,500 individuals, including 12% who were criminals. That's approximately 1,900 criminals who were removed from Canada as part of the agency's enforcement mandate for immigration and refugee laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Lamoureux, Ms. James has agreed that you can have two of her seven minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Here are three quick questions, Mr. Minister. If you could provide, to the best of your ability, an answer to them, I would appreciate it. New powers of the minister to prevent entry is what I want to focus on.

What are the checks and balances on the minister and on this discretionary power going to be?

Second, how will these cases be flagged and brought to the minister's attention?

The third and final question is, how many permanent residents appeal a court decision in which a sentence is two years or less under the current system of a year?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

On the last question, the answer is that an average of 850 foreign nationals appeal a removal order based on inadmissibility for reasons of serious criminality. For example, in 2009, it was 1,086 people; last year it was 564. But on average it's 850. There are currently 2,747 appeals of inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality pending before the Immigration Appeal Division.

On the earlier questions, about what would circumscribe the minister's discretion, frankly, his or her accountability to Parliament and to law would; the decisions cannot be made in a capricious manner.

The cases would be brought to the minister's attention, presumably in most cases by the Border Services Agency, but frankly, often these things arise in the media. Usually, when we're talking about some crazy hate-monger who is coming into Canada, I hear about it from members of a particular community who are concerned that this person is coming in. They will contact us through MPs or they'll make it known through the media.

The point I have made before is that there already is very broad discretion under IRPA in terms of positive discretion: it's the power of temporary resident permits—which, I point out, I have used much more sparingly than any of my predecessors, I think. Last year I think I issued fewer than 100 temporary resident permits under ministerial authority.

The negative discretion would be an analogous authority, in the sense that it would be broad but would be used with great discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hill, that's the end of the two minutes, I'm afraid. Just so I'm clear, I think you undertook to give the committee the progress of the department since the AG's report.

[Peter Hill]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could you give that to the clerk soon?

[Peter Hill]

I would be happy to.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I will just remind the committee that this meeting will conclude at 5:25. We've got some committee business that won't take long.

Ms. Sims, you have a point of order.

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

I have a point of order. I was wondering if the minister and the staff could make available to us statistics relating to deportations and appeals.

Thank you very much.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes, I have some of those stats here, but if you have precise questions, we'd be happy to provide the answer in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's not a point of order, but he's going to give it to you.

Ms. James, you have up to five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I have to tell you I was very shocked to learn that criminals who have been inadmissible on the most serious grounds—war crimes, human rights violations, and organized crime—have delayed their deportation from Canada by filing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I find this very disturbing. Not only is this contrary to Canada's “no safe haven” policy, it's completely unacceptable. When I think of the term “humanitarian”, war criminals, human rights violators, and organized criminals do not come to mind. I'm wondering if you could please give us your comments on that.

Also, because of the ability of those types of foreign nationals to apply on those types of grounds, what does that do to those who are filing or appealing under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, who are doing it in good faith and are genuine cases? Could you comment on that, please?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you.

Certainly, eliminating access to the humanitarian and compassionate process for people such as war criminals and those involved in crimes against humanity inter alia would reduce the volume of applications, and that would help speed up processing for the legitimate immigrants who may be facing removal for much less serious reasons.

My view on this, Ms. James, is simply that Canada is a very compassionate country, but there should be limits to our compassion. I don't think we should extend this notion of compassionate consideration to war criminals, and that's essentially the rationale for the amendment.

I was shocked when I learned this too. I couldn't quite believe it. For me, it reflected a whole lot of problems that had built up in our system, this erring very significantly on the side of the rights of even the most serious kinds of criminals, as opposed to Canada's national interest.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm going to speak of a specific individual, Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad. He carried out terrorist acts for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Despite his connections and links with terrorism, which are not disputed, he has been able to remain in Canada since 1987; that's 25 years. How has he done this? He's done this through judicial appeals at a cost of $3 million to Canadian taxpayers.

Minister Kenney, what's wrong with this picture?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

A great deal. Mr. Mohammad is the poster boy for what's wrong with our system, and the fact that he's been able to delay removal now for 26 years after having lied his way into this country, having a terrorism conviction in Greece, by the way, and after having been released from prison because other terrorists hijacked another plane to demand his release...that he's here 26 years later makes a mockery of our system.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do you think Canadian taxpayers should foot that bill?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, I don't think someone like that should be able to stay here for 26 years. As I said before, even terrorists, given our tradition of the rule of law, deserve their day in court. They certainly don't deserve 26 years, metaphorically speaking, in court, and that's what we've seen in this case.

Frankly, there were operational screw-ups in this case, which I find totally unacceptable and I've asked to get to the bottom of them. Some of the delays are just inexplicable, and these go way back under multiple governments. Part of the problem, though, was policy—part of the problem we're trying to fix with some of these amendments and other amendments we've made.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Do I have any time left? A minute?

This is a very random question. When we talk about the cost to taxpayers on this particular case, it's not just the $3 million; it's the 25 years and the tying up of our legal system.

I'm wondering if you have any idea how long it takes the average Canadian to actually earn and save $3 million?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, I don't, but it's probably a whole lifetime, I imagine.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have the final word, Ms. Sims.

[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—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This isn't even close to the bill.

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

As I said, I'm asking nicely. We don't often get the minister here.