Debates of Jan. 29th, 2013

Motions in amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the bill that is rarely talked about is that the government would now increase from two years to five years a person's ability to apply to immigrate to Canada where there has been an issue regarding misrepresentation. The government has failed to recognize that there is unintentional misrepresentation. There is bad immigration advice, and as a result it is a fairly profound consequence to increase the time from two years to five years before that individual would be able to apply.

At committee we heard examples of cases where there was a great deal of sympathy, that five years would not be proper to give. I wonder if the member could provide comment on that aspect of the legislation.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one of the examples that misses the whole point of how we administer our immigration system. There are a number of other points in the bill that do not address or take into consideration some common sense, yet it gives more power to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deal with these issues. Clearly it is not balanced. The bill is basically flawed. It needs a lot of review. We offered that review and pragmatic, practical solutions to address some of those issues that the member for Winnipeg North raised. But again, the Conservatives are bent on pursuing their agenda in a tunnel. That is not addressing the general immigration system in this country.

[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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, getting policy right in Parliament is not always easy and when we pick an arbitrary number to determine whether individuals are serious criminals is always a question of subjectivity.

In Canadian law, the general historical rule for determining whether something is a serious offence is a sentence of two years or more. If it is a sentence of two years or more, they do federal time; if it is two years or less, they do provincial time. We recognize that there are different levels of services offered, based on which side the sentence is on.

I am curious about the use of the term “serious foreign criminals” for people who get a sentence of six or seven months. Nobody in this House would ever say that a criminal sentence is not serious. Anytime a person is going to prison, obviously that is something that is worthy of sanction. However, in terms of taking permanent residents and deporting them from a country they may have lived in for 20 or 30 years, based on getting a sentence of seven or eight months, is something that is worthy of debate.

Does my hon. colleague have any comment on whether he thinks that moving serious criminality from two years to six months, or keeping six months, is an appropriate demarcation that would result in such consequences like deportation from the country in which someone may have grown up?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a legitimate debate. In my view, the six-month penal sentence is an appropriate time period.

Going back to what the minister said earlier in debate, these are people who are actually convicted of a serious crime. These are people who go through the Canadian legal system, have the presumption of innocence and proceed through the legal system, as other Canadians would, and are convicted at the end of that. The six-month demarcation, in my view, is an appropriate time limit to establish. Beyond that is a serious penal offence that would require the measures that are proposed in this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I posed a question to the minister, and now I have the quote and I wonder if the member might provide a comment. It is in regard to an earlier question. The minister is here and maybe he could also have one of the other members provide comment on it at a later time.

In the committee it was stated:

Using a false or fraudulent document is an offence under section 368 of the Criminal Code carrying 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 in the United States is inadmissible under IRPA for a foreign conviction. It doesn't matter that the U.S. court punished him only with a $200 fine. IRPA section 36(1)(b) does not require any particular sentence, only a foreign conviction.

This would then apply to the story that I made reference to for the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. Is this particular member prepared to say that this particular statement is wrong?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister and others will want to address the member opposite's question in substance as well.

With respect to this issue, however, I refer back to the point that someone has to be convicted of an offence in Canada and that conviction has to exceed the six-month demarcation. That is the standard that would be used in this legislation, only to the extent that it would affect the appeal process beyond that. So they have gone through the legal system in Canada and I believe that six-month demarcation period would be sufficient for the measures that are in this legislation, which then would restrict the appeal process beyond that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can prevail on my hon. colleague to help me get to the bottom of an earlier answer that I got from the parliamentary secretary.

I think in error the parliamentary secretary misread clause 8 and thought it was a regulatory empowerment clause, which it is not. I trained as a lawyer and know how to do legislative drafting. Clause 8 revises section 22 of the act to give the minister discretion. It is not an empowerment section; it has nothing to do with regulation making.

I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc would agree with me that section 22 stands on its own. It is not about setting out regulations for the rest of the bill. It is a stand-alone section that gives the minister the discretion to refuse temporary residence if the minister is of the opinion that it is justified by public policy considerations.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to discretion, the minister pointed out in response to an earlier question by a member that the minister currently has positive discretion and, therefore, the question is why the minister should not exercise negative discretion.

Also, there are public policy criteria, which I know the member opposite will know well, that the minister would use, if this legislation passes, in applying that negative discretion. I reviewed the criteria with the minister directly and I think those criteria are sufficient for guiding this minister or any future minister with respect to the use of that negative discretion.

[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.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you and everyone else back. This is my first time speaking in this venerable place this year of 2013.

I have a question for her. We often hear, where I am from in Davenport and in Toronto, parents concerned about some of the measures contained in the bill, because of the fact that sometimes young people make the wrong choices and get into a little trouble. Some of these immigrant parents are concerned that because of measures contained in the bill that their youth are at risk of falling within the confines and ultimately being sent back to their home country. This is will create further problems for families. It does not seem like the right way to go about this kind of approach.

Could my colleague speak to the issue of young people and the concerns that have been raised?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport reminded me that this is the first time I have stood in the House this year. Happy new year to everybody. I am very glad to be back.

We heard in committee that there were many people who came to Canada as small children a couple months old or a year old. The only country they know is Canada. They are, for all intents and purposes, Canadians, but have not necessarily become citizens yet.

That is very scary for a person who has grown up in Canada and who may fall into the wrong crowd or make a few mistakes, which is completely normal. If these people have been raised by Canadian society, it is our responsibility to understand that they are not non-Canadians or individuals who are foreigners who we can just deport because they do not have their citizenship yet.

We have to take responsibility for the fact that these people, for all intents and purposes, are Canadian.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, here we go. The NDP has been claiming all along that it knows the current system for removal of foreign criminals is too slow and should be streamlined, but it never supports any specific measure to do so.

Now we have an NDP member saying that foreign nationals who have grown up in Canada should not be subject to deportation if they commit a serious crime. Not only does the NDP oppose our measures to streamline the deportation of convicted serious foreign criminals, it is actually in favour of making it even more difficult or in fact barring the removal from Canada of convicted serious foreign criminals.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway had suggested that under law a serious crime was defined as one that lead to a penal sentence of two years or more. I would point that member and the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to section 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that says, “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”.

I just want to clarify. Is the member suggesting that foreign nationals who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence, as defined by the immigration act, should not be deported from Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that non-citizens who commit serious crimes in Canada should be dealt with quickly and efficiently.

However, we are very concerned that the bill is far too stretching. Did the minister just say “six months”? Did he just admit to that? I do not really consider that serious criminality. For instance, for people who have grown up in Canada and commit crimes that puts them in prison for six months, we need to accept that this is far overreaching and the government has gone too far with its bill this time.

Frankly, we made very reasonable amendments at committee that would have curbed the excessive power and the overreach and would have ensured that we followed judicial process in the country and they were rejected. Had these very reasonable amendments been accepted, we would have been able to support the bill through the House to ensure that Canadians were safer.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to work with the opposition. Therefore, we cannot support the 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the example of the member is fundamentally flawed. Let me share with him an email that I received and summarily presented before the committee. It makes reference to his case. It makes reference to what the minister had said earlier during the day on a CBC Morning interview, and that was what ultimately led to this email. It states:

Referring to the minister, he specifically cites the cases of Clinton Gayle, 1991 to 1994, and the two B.C. street racers, that would be Bhalru and Khosa, and claimed that these were both cases where the foreigners appealed deportation orders and committed further crimes in the interim. The minister is wrong. Gayle did appeal the deportation order, yes, but lost. The Immigration Department then 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 their negligence, and the department settled the suit. The reason Gayle remained in Canada was because of the department. It was not the appeal division.

Maybe the member would want to comment on that?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says everybody is seriously flawed when he asks a question. What is not seriously flawed that Clinton Gayle killed a police officer, and that is the bottom line.

I can cite other cases. Jackie Tran from Vietnam was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession, failure to comply with court orders, sentences ranging from $100 fine to two years less a day of imprisonment. Did he appeal? Absolutely. The removal order was given in April 2004 and he was finally removed in March 2010, nearly six years of delay while this guy was on the streets committing further crimes against innocent Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the very pointed angle from my colleague, who is also a member of the citizenship and immigration committee and knows that from witness after expert after lawyer after refugee expert, we heard how the bill was not appropriate, that the bill was possibly unconstitutional, that the bill could put so much extra power in the hands of the minister, one person, rather than a tribunal or board.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about the fact that the bill would concentrate an excessive amount of power in the hands of one minister within the cabinet?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is entirely appropriate because, at the end of the day, it safeguards honest, hardworking Canadians from foreign criminals who threaten their livelihood and lives.

The member is also on the immigration committee and had an opportunity to question the police witnesses, and yet no questions were put to those expert witnesses at that time.

The bill would do three things: it would make it easier, make it harder, and remove barriers. It would make it easier for the government to remove dangerous foreign criminals from our country. It would make it harder for those who may pose a risk to Canada to enter the country in the first place. It would remove barriers for genuine visitors who want to come to Canada and take advantage of all this country has to offer.

[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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River said there should be an appeals process before serious convicted foreign criminals are deported from Canada. Is she not aware that there is an appeals process in the criminal justice system? A Canadian citizen or a foreign national who is charged with an offence can go before a Canadian criminal court. If found guilty, they can appeal that conviction. In fact, they can also, in most cases, appeal the sentence. Does she not understand there already is an appeal in the criminal process?

The second question I have is for the hon. member who spoke just before the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who spoke earlier said that the current definition of a serious crime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is one involving a sentence of at least six months. She said that that was inappropriate, that it was too harsh.

Her colleague said that six months was too high a bar for a sentence leading to the deportation of a foreign criminal. Does she agree? Does she think we should raise the bar from six months for triggering the deportation of foreign nationals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for being here and participating in this dialogue, because his Conservative colleagues at committee were absolutely not interested in dealing with the issues before us, with what immigration experts, refugee rights lawyers, and mental health professionals testified at committee about their real life experiences with newcomers to this country, refugee appellants and people who come here to start a new life.

At committee the minister's colleagues did not really want to hear what witnesses had to say, but wanted to push forward with their own agenda. That is clearly what happened when the NDP, time and time again, brought forward reasonable amendments to address the concerns the minister raised at committee. Yet, I guess under his guidance, the parliamentary secretary and the rest of his Conservative team chose to vote against him and all of the reasonable changes we put forward at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the fact this legislation would break up families quite significantly. There could be a family where one person is being deported because of an action. Such an action does not have to be one where that person is sentenced to jail, but could be a conditional sentence. Say a happily married father of three who has been in Canada for 15 or 20 years falls on the wrong side of the law on one occasion and gets a six month conditional sentence. That person would have to be deported without access to appeal.

Would the member comment on the destructive force this legislation potentially could have on families who are permanent residents in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and the work he does at the immigration committee. He is absolutely right when he says that the bill has the real potential of breaking up families. The example he gave is very real.

There could be cases where someone has immigrated to this country and is a permanent resident or refugee claimant, whatever it may be, and starts an entire family here but gets caught for a minor misdemeanour, resulting in a sentence of six months. That person could be deported if he is not a citizen of this country.

Another example could be that of a woman who, as a young teenager, handed out leaflets on a topic deemed inappropriate under public policy considerations, and who would be deported as a result from Canada. When sent back to her home country, she could be killed because she had distributed those flyers as a young teen.

In short, we could be splitting families but also sending innocent people to be killed.

[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.