Debates of Jan. 30th, 2013

Bill C-43--Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Hon. members who wish to participate will recall from previous debates on this particular question that they are encouraged to keep their interventions to no more than one minute so that other hon. members will have the opportunity to participate in the short 30-minute debate.

The hon. House leader for the opposition.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again with a government that finds the democratic process inconvenient and a problem for its legislative agenda. After an exhaustive six and a half hours of debate on this bill, the Conservatives are moving time allocation once again, for the 28th time since they came to power as a majority government.

One would think that being a majority government would allow the Conservatives enough confidence to actually have the conversation with Canadians in the House. However, lo and behold, 28 times later they have shut down debate, just using this one tool of time allocation, never mind their other abuses of power in Parliament.

The question for the government is simple: What are they afraid of? Why are they so fearful of a conversation about a bill that they claim to have such pride in and to be of such necessity? After just six and a half hours, they are again shutting down members of Parliament from all sides and our ability to do one simple thing, to hold the government to account and to be representative of the people who elected us and put us in the chamber.

Why is there such addiction to time allocation, to censure of Parliament, to the bullying tactics and the abuse of Parliament that the government has become so prone to using over these short years?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, of the many questions posed, the one I picked up on was what was the government afraid of. I suppose we are afraid that the opposition's dilatory filibuster tactics, reflected in the completely dilatory amendments put forward at report stage, would endlessly delay the adoption and implementation of this bill.

The delay of this bill's implementation would result in the victimization of Canadians by foreign criminals who would be able to delay for years their deportation from Canada. We have presented in debate dozens of examples, representing probably hundreds of other examples, of inadmissible, convicted, serious foreign criminals who have gone on to commit serious offences while delaying their removal. We will not allow criminals like them to continue creating new victims in Canada, which is why we call upon the House to adopt this bill expeditiously, a bill that was outlined in our party's election platform.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this debate right now is about process. The government's House leader has failed Canadians in terms of respecting the proper procedures of the House of Commons. Generally speaking, we bring in legislation and allow for a free and open debate of all members of Parliament from all political parties. Time and time again, the government has brought in time allocation to prevent individual members of Parliament from engaging in debate that is critically important to their giving due diligence to the legislation before them, whether Bill C-43, the Canadian Wheat Board, the pooled pension legislation, the gun registry, the back to work legislation, the financial system review act, budget bills, CP, Canada Post, Air Canada, Bill C-31 and the list goes on.

The Conservative government, unlike any other government in the history of the chamber, uses time allocation as a way to ram through its legislation. My question is for the government House leader or the Prime Minister. How does he justify to Canadians his continuous abuse of the privileges of members of Parliament by not allowing us to stand up and voice the concerns of our constituents and of our—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Again, try to keep interventions to one minute.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first it might be helpful to remind the member for Winnipeg North that there actually is a very modern audio system in the chamber that amplifies sound.

I point out to the member that there has been extensive debate on this bill at second reading. Dozens of witnesses were heard at the committee's review of the bill and, indeed, this is not a notion that has been introduced without previous public debate. To the contrary, the Conservative Party of Canada included the core of this bill as an election campaign platform commitment, so we all had an opportunity to debate the content of this bill during the last election period. Canadians gave this government a mandate to make our streets safer, in part by more quickly deporting convicted serious foreign criminals, and we have an obligation to keep that commitment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are back to their old tricks, which, unfortunately, are all too common these days. Their actions demonstrate a lack of respect for our democracy, for the members here in the House and for the Canadians who voted for those members.

When will the minister decide to respect the Canadians who elected us? Can we get an answer?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I can answer and say that it is quite clear that the NDP and the Liberals intend to keep this bill from ever passing. They have proposed a number of flimsy amendments to Bill C-43 as a stalling tactic.

Be it in this Parliament or any other parliament, there must be a balance between debate and passing bills that are important for the general public. This government will work to protect our communities. I am disappointed that the New Democratic Party does not support that.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this 31st time allocation motion, the government is setting an appalling record of denying democracy.

The minister just mentioned balance. We agree with some of the points in his bill, Bill C-43, including for instance that it is only natural for our society to try to avoid becoming a haven for criminals who are looking for one. One thing is clear: these measures need to be very focused, and that is not the case with Bill C-43. A number of amendments were proposed, including some by the Green Party leader that the Bloc Québécois supports.

In order to ensure that his bill is balanced, is the minister willing to see to it that his government adopts those amendments? Thus, Bill C-43 could then achieve what it set out to do: ensure that Canada does not become a haven for criminals, but without preventing innocent people from entering Canada and Quebec.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that serious question.

In committee, we accepted and adopted some changes and amendments. As I said earlier, we are always open to improvements. When we debated this bill at report stage, we saw a radically different perspective from the opposition. They opposed the main point of the bill, that is, the faster removal of foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes. Canadians want our government to take action on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will make it very clear, on behalf of all my colleagues, that we have no interest in blocking legislation dealing with the expeditious removal of serious criminals. We believe there are processes in place to do that. However, we do have very serious concerns when the minister of state stands up in the House and calls legitimate debate a filibuster, especially when the Conservative members have taken up all of their speaking spots. Obviously there is a lineup of them who want to debate this as well.

The amendments we moved at committee stage were very reasonable. I am sure that my colleagues on the Conservative side will agree publicly, as they did at committee, with how reasonable these were. What we were seeking was clarity, and we did not get it.

Would the minister agree to put the criteria for entry into Canada, or for exclusion, into this piece of legislation?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, witnesses were heard, amendments were proposed, considered, and some were adopted at committee stage.

When the member says she and her party want to expedite the removal of convicted serious foreign criminals, I honestly and regrettably doubt that. At the report stage debate yesterday, all of which I attended, I heard several of her colleagues say that the current threshold in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for a removal order to become effective for a foreign national who has been convicted of a crime carrying a custodial sentence of six months or more was too low and should be raised.

It seems to me that the NDP, at least many of them, want to make it more difficult, not easier, for the government to deport serious convicted foreign criminals, and Canadians do not agree.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this discussion and I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill. I note there seems to be some confusion. There is some concern on the other side that innocent people will be deported.

As I understand it, the bill relates to people who have been convicted by the courts. Therefore, they are criminals who are not Canadians. Quite frankly, whether it is six months or two years, I do not think Canadians want the type of serious criminals the bill is addressing remaining in Canada, individuals convicted of assault with a weapon, fraud, forgery, sexual assault on senior citizens and drug trafficking.

Does the minister have anything to add to help clarify the discussion because I think there is some confusion on the other side as to what the bill deals with?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that there may be some confusion because I heard a number of members of the opposition yesterday suggest that the threshold for serious criminality for us to remove a foreign national criminal was two years.

I have the Immigration Act right here. The Immigration Refugee Protection Act was adopted in 2002. The threshold for removing convicted foreign criminals from Canada is that of serious criminality, which has been defined as cases where the convict has received a custodial sentence of six months or more.

Only 10% of custodial sentences in Canada are between six months and two years. We are talking about very serious offences, like those mentioned by the hon. minister. Canadians do not understand why we would keep people like that in our country one day longer than we have to. The point of the bill is once they are done their sentence, they will be taken to the airport and removed. I will not tolerate further delays that jeopardize the safety of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister who is defending a motion to end the debate in the House and move time allocation is not the minister who is the moving force to drive this to a time allocation.

I would like to pay a brief moment of tribute to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the only minister I know of in the current cabinet who shows up for every debate on all of his bills and answers all the questions. It is quite extraordinary.

However, I do not believe it is in the interest of democracy to continue to limit debate and impose time allocation.

I briefly want to note these words of former Speaker John Fraser from 1989, which were cited in the Speaker's ruling of December 12 last year in the House, “We are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy”.

In a real parliamentary democracy, we have full debates. It is not delay; it is called democracy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that it is not the practice to encourage members to speak of the absence or presence of members in the House.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I did not hear a question, I will take her comments as such.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that for the next few minutes the debate should be about procedure and the time allocation motion just moved.

For the past few minutes, the Conservatives have been talking about the substance of the bill, as though they wanted to present a summary debate. They seem to want to spend two minutes on the bill and then move on.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the denial of democracy in this House every time a time allocation motion is moved.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34 was debated for several hours at second reading, and much longer in committee, where we heard from a dozen witnesses. Some amendments were adopted by the committee. Furthermore, we again debated the issue in the House yesterday. I was present at all the debates.

I would like to point out once more that the main part of the bill was a Conservative election promise made in the last election. We had the opportunity to discuss this idea with the general public, which gave the government a mandate to make Canada safer, especially by dealing with serious foreign criminals. That is what we are doing.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of this bill, and being a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I think of the terrible incident that happened in Toronto with Constable Todd Baylis, not only because I live in Toronto, but my father also served that great city as a Toronto police officer.

Members know the fact that the gentleman who murdered and shot—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like for us to talk about Bill C-43 but instead we are talking about a motion to limit debate. We therefore must talk about debate procedure. I think the Standing Orders are clear. It is a matter of relevance and the member should stick to the issue of the motion rather than the content of Bill C-43.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Bourassa. As one will know on debates of this kind, the subject of the motion that is the subject of time allocation invariably becomes part of the debate. All members will know that their adherence to keeping their remarks and comments relevant to the question before the House is certainly encouraged.

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that I had one minute to come to the relevance the opposition member so seeks.

When I think of this issue, I think of the person who gunned down Toronto Constable Todd Baylis, Clinton Gayle. I remember being on the committee. One of the witnesses from the police association actually stated that had Bill C-43 been in place back then, Constable Todd Baylis would still be alive.

Why is it so important to get this legislation passed quickly?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is actually right. That is the point I am trying to make. This actually is a matter of some urgency.

I regret that members of the opposition, who have every right and indeed responsibility to question legislation and to seek to improve it, fundamentally tend to be opposed to legislation that we propose to strengthen public security, such as this bill.

Every year about 800 serious convicted foreign criminals make appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, thereby delaying their deportation, typically for several years.

I do not know how long the opposition wants to delay this. Of those 800 criminals, several dozen a month will be released onto our streets, delaying their deportation. Many of them will reoffend. I want to minimize that as quickly as possible.