Debates of Jan. 30th, 2013

Report Stage

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that it is not only Conservative members of Parliament who have been making this case about Clinton Gayle and Constable Baylis. In fact, The Globe and Mail said exactly the same thing.

The Globe and Mail said:

The infamous example of Clinton Gayle underscores the need for such legislation.

A Jamaican citizen who was convicted in Canada of multiple criminal offences, Mr. Gayle was able to remain in the country long after a 1991 deportation order, because of the immigration appeals process. In 1996, he shot two Toronto police officers, killing one of them.

The member will know that if Mr. Gayle had not had the opportunity to make the appeal in the first place, he would not have been in Canada and had the opportunity to kill that police officer.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Conservative Party.

In my riding, one of my constituents immigrated from Vietnam and moved to Quebec 32 years ago, when he was 8 years old. He and his brother came to Canada aboard a ship. His parents had been killed in Vietnam, so he was an orphan. He grew up here and not long afterwards, he was put in a reception centre because his brother could no longer take care of him.

Of course he learned a few things while he was living at the reception centre. He became a juvenile delinquent here in Canada and he was put in prison when he was 18. Now, this man, who is 40 years old and has six children, is being sent back to Vietnam. He does not even speak the language. He became a delinquent during his youth here in Canada. And he is going to be sent back to Vietnam

What is the member's position on that? Does he believe that this man is a foreign criminal or a Canadian criminal?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that he is not a citizen and he has committed serious offences.

However, what the member should know, if she has ever had an opportunity to read the Criminal Code of Canada, is that there are a number of hybrid offences, offences whereby the Crown can proceed by way of indictable or summary conviction offence. They are very serious crimes, crimes such as sexual assault, armed robbery, and the list goes on.

In order to ensure that justice is done swiftly, the Crown often chooses to proceed by summary conviction and, as members will know, they would then get a sentence of two years less a day and would then, under the current law, be able to remain in Canada despite the fact that they had committed a sexual assault, an armed robbery or some other serious offence such as that.

We are putting an end to that today with this bill and Canadians wish us to do so.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I will be voting against the opposition amendments proposed at the report stage, as they would prevent this important bill from becoming law.

While debating this bill the opposition members have claimed that it would affect every single one of the 1.5 million permanent residents in Canada. I agree with them. Every single one of those 1.5 million permanent residents would be safer because our government would be removing dangerous foreign criminals off our streets and out of our country more quickly.

Our government knows that a vast majority of newcomers to Canada are honest, hard-working and law-abiding. Because of this, newcomers, maybe even more than those born in Canada, want us to crack down on crime. What is more, immigrants are more likely to be victims of dangerous foreign criminals than those who are Canadian-born. Permanent residents would be safer, thanks to this bill and the actions of our Conservative government.

In recent days we have had the opportunity to listen to hon. members who are opposed to this legislation attempt to explain why they oppose this bill. The New Democrats and the Liberals are aghast at the idea of changing foreign criminals' ability to appeal a deportation to the Immigration Appeal Division for those sentenced to six months or more in prison from the current two years. There really has been no shortage of hypothetical examples detailing how this change will “go too far” and tear families apart because of minor crimes. It is very telling that while Conservative members have provided a dozen or more real-life cases to show why this bill is needed, the New Democrats and Liberals have not been able to identify one single real-life example of someone being sentenced from six months to two years for what they refer to as “a minor crime”. There has not been any, not one real-life case, to justify shocking opposition to this bill which is so needed to keep Canadians safer across our country.

The Liberal immigration critic from Winnipeg has been particularly vocal in stating that any young adult can find themselves in a situation where by accident they end up with a prison sentence of six months or longer. I point out that the president of the Canadian Police Association disagreed with him. In fact, the president made it very clear that receiving a six-month sentence in Canada is a benchmark that the person is a criminal, and usually a repeat offender. However, apparently the New Democrats and Liberals do not care what police associations or victims organizations have to say about this bill. They have completely ignored the massive support that this bill has received and that even the media have given it across Canada.

Let us take a look at what the New Democrats and Liberals deem to be minor crimes leading to sentences of six months to two years. They are assault with a weapon, breaking and entering, robbery, sexual assault and, in one case a few years ago, sexual assault of a senior citizen. This list goes on and on.

When the hon. members opposed to this legislation stand up and claim that changing the eligibility to appeal a deportation to the Immigration Appeal Division would potentially negatively affect innocent well-intentioned permanent residents, it is the crimes of the dangerous foreign criminals that they are actually defending. Make no mistake: these criminals who have been found guilty are also often repeat offenders, dangerous foreign criminals who should not be on Canadian streets.

Their victims are just as real as their crimes. They are innocent Canadians. They are families whose bank accounts have been emptied, who will never feel safe again in their own homes, or they are seniors who have been sexually violated in the most horrendous way. These victims are law-abiding Canadians who put trust in their elected representatives to protect them. The opposition members disregard for the rights of victims is lost in a cloud of rhetoric over this legislation, which they say would go too far.

Some of the hon. members across the way have expressed outrage that we are using a handful of extreme examples that are not representative of the actual people whom this bill would affect. Apparently 850 dangerous foreign criminals appealing their deportation every year, with 2,700 currently waiting for a decision on their appeal, is not a significant enough number for the opposition. I point out again that the Canadian Police Association disagreed with the opposition. Its president was shocked at how high this number is. When he appeared before the committee in strong support of this bill, he made it clear that this number is much too high, as it is also too high for law-abiding Canadians.

I am very disturbed by the NDP and Liberal attempts to defend dangerous foreign criminals. I am shocked that they have repeated in this House, in contradiction to what the police association has said, that a six-month sentence is not a serious crime. If it were up to the NDP and Liberals, we would be debating a bill entitled “the slower removal of foreign criminals act”, or “the keeping foreign criminals in our communities act”.

Our Conservative government is finally putting a stop to dangerous foreign criminals relying on endless appeals to remain free to make more victims of innocent Canadians.

Canadians are a generous and welcoming people to newcomers and the vast majority of them are honest and law-abiding, whether Canadian-born or immigrants to Canada. They have no tolerance for our generosity being abused.

With this legislation, we are fulfilling a campaign commitment to take a stand against a core problem in our immigration system, which is one that sees the welfare of dangerous foreign criminals given more consideration than their victims. The measures in this bill would end the current system that allows dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country for too long after their welcome has been worn out and they have made it clear they do not seek to contribute to Canadian society but rather to abuse it.

Our government is committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act, is our commitment, put into action, to seek real results to keep Canadians safe.

The well-being of Canadians, their safety and security, is not a partisan issue. The integrity of our immigration system is not a partisan issue. Canada's ability to properly deal with those who victimize our citizens is not a partisan issue. These are real issues that Canadians from all walks of life, who have suffered and spoken clearly about, want us as parliamentarians to take action on.

I respectfully ask that the hon. members in the opposition consider the facts rather than prevent the passage of this bill. Please put the well-being of Canadians and the integrity of our immigration system first, and support Bill C-43.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while on winter vacation, I enjoyed reading Mafia Inc., a book that reveals everything about the big mafia bosses, including their criminal records. It also describes how these people came to Canada illegally, how they lied to Immigration Canada and how their activities engender crime.

This government claims to want to protect Canadians, but it is reducing the number of police officers, who are needed to put these people behind bars. This government also says that it wants to pass immigration legislation to protect Canadians from dangerous foreign bandits. These big-time criminals are not concerned by this law.

These big-time criminals will not be threatened by this law, which is just a smokescreen. It is nothing but a marketing ploy to make people believe that the Conservatives are tough on crime. In reality, they have not delivered the goods. None of the members opposite can guarantee that these people, these top criminals, will be deported.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member opposite is misleading Canadians. Bill C-43 is about removing foreign criminals who have been found guilty in a court of law for serious crimes against citizens in Canada.

I would also like to point out that there are documented cases, which have been debated here in the House, of actual foreign criminals. Jackie Tran was charged with assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, drug possession and failure to comply with court orders. His order of removal was April 2004, but he was not removed until six years later. There are others. For example, with an order of removal for October 2007, the person was not removed until four and a half years later. On another order of removal for September 2003, the person was not removed until five years later.

Canadians across this country are tired of these ongoing delays in the appeals. I would ask the member opposite to support this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again I would appeal to government members that if they really want to do Canadians a service they should be investing more resources with Canada Border Services Agency and with regard to immigration. If they really want to try to deport the foreign criminals the minister continues to refer to, put the resources necessary so we can get them out of the country quicker.

Having said that, I want to ask the minister a very personal type of question. Imagine a three-year-old who comes to Canada as an immigrant. Some 17 or 18 years later, this individual graduates high school, goes to the United States to celebrate and uses false identification with his buddies because he wants to buy a drink. Because he gets a $200 fine or whatever it is, that individual, according to this law, would be deported without the right to an appeal. We know that--

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is complete nonsense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Even though the minister says it is complete nonsense, when I asked him the question to challenge it, he could not even answer, because he does not understand his own legislation.

My question for the member is why does she want to separate someone who might have three or four siblings, parents living in Canada--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver South has about 35 seconds.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does me a great service, but I am not the minister, unfortunately. We have a perfectly great minister here.

The real issue is that foreign criminals have been delaying their deportation for years and years, as I answered previously. The bill is to remove them faster, more effectively, more efficiently, so that Canadians can be safer in their own homes and in their own communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the time I have been given.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against the direction that is being taken with Bill C-43 and the Conservatives' attitude when this bill was examined in committee.

The Conservatives are incorrectly implying that we have certain motives. We will never support those who commit serious crimes, but we are concerned about this bill, which once again gives the minister more arbitrary power.

I would also like to remind members of the importance of democratic debate. The use of the time allocation motion, which is once again muzzling us, is a shining example of this government's closed-mindedness. The Conservatives have adopted a completely uncompromising attitude, which we also noticed in committee.

The implementation of Bill C-43 will make significant changes to the way newcomers to Canada are treated. It is inconsistent with the Canadian justice system, our country's precepts of compassion and our humanitarian mission. Many of the measures in this bill will have a major impact on the current system.

First, the government is intensifying deportation procedures by limiting the barriers that act as a counterbalance. On one hand, any crime carrying a sentence of over six months in prison will result in automatic deportation. The government is therefore imposing a double penalty because the prison sentence will be combined with deportation. The Conservatives have also introduced a logic whereby people are not allowed to make mistakes. That is a shameful attitude.

On the other hand, Bill C-43 puts an end to appeals in cases involving sentences of over six months, which goes against the principles of our justice system. What the government is telling us is that people are not allowed to make mistakes and that they will be deported. And, under this bill, their families will be deported along with them.

This bill also gives the minister discretionary powers without requiring him to be accountable or transparent. He will now have the authority to declare somebody a threat because of public policy considerations. The minister will be the only counterbalance to himself because of the lack of appeal process, and the concept of public policy considerations is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In addition, Bill C-43 indiscriminately lumps all of the consequences for misrepresentation together. As a result, whether the misrepresentation is intentional or not, the individual would be inadmissible for five years.

According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, not only is Bill C-43 inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also deprives people of fair consideration of their applications. It denies them access to the principle of fairness before the law and to an independent legal process.

Furthermore, the organization is critical of these new measures whereby someone who fought against an undemocratic regime would be prohibited from entering Canada. Would people like Nelson Mandela constitute a threat to Canada's national security? I doubt it.

A number of issues in this bill that we wanted to fix with our amendments are problematic. We pointed them out to the government, and we were backed up by witnesses in committee. We wanted the government to use common sense and look at the potential impact of Bill C-43.

By agreeing to go to committee, our parliamentary wing showed a willingness to be open and to compromise. We wanted to work on improving the bill. What we were asking for was warranted and realistic and would have improved the bill. Unfortunately, the government refused to listen to our suggestions and improve the bill. Instead of being pragmatic, the government insisted on justifying an ideology and regressive measures and on promoting division.

The Conservatives' statements have done everything to paint refugees and permanent residents as dangerous people, potential terrorists or people who come here only to take advantage of the system. These days, anyone who is not a full-scale citizen will not be recognized and will be considered by the Conservatives to be a foreigner with no room for error.

All along, the Conservatives have used extraordinarily rare exceptions to justify their bill, forgetting the majority of applicants, forgetting the people who will be directly affected by Bill C-43. When we expressed concerns about the impact of the bill, the government accused us of being soft on fraudsters.

When a witness stated that because the police in the country engage in racial profiling, Bill C-43 would disproportionately affect visible minorities, the expert was accused of siding with criminals. Our work in committee was constantly marred by these kinds of demagogic and poisonous comments.

This attitude must be brought to light and condemned. We wanted to debate the bill and discuss it. We were proactive and submitted proposals. But the government wanted to advance its political agenda. The Conservative ideology, which is focused on security, is helping create a system that functions by exception. This system will severely limit the fundamental rights of certain categories of immigrants.

We tried to help improve Bill C-43 while it was being studied in committee. We proposed nine reasonable amendments that addressed previous criticisms. Unfortunately, all of the opposition's amendments were flatly rejected.

In keeping with the ethical principles that guide Canadian parliamentarians, we proposed that the minister act transparently and report any decisions made through the use of his new discretionary powers. This request was rejected by the Conservatives. In so doing, the government refused to make the minister accountable to the people. It objected to the idea that the minister should provide details about the discretionary decisions he makes.

In accordance with the overarching legal principles of the Canadian system, we proposed reinstating the right to appeal, which Bill C-43 does away with. The Conservatives rejected our proposal, thereby rejecting a fundamental principle of our justice system: judicial appeal.

The Conservatives seem proud of the fact that the minister will have the power to review cases, but they neglect to mention that, as a result, he will be judge and jury. To limit the scope of Bill C-43, we suggested that the government clarify the notion of public policy considerations, which is not defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We wanted to clarify the factors involved in the minister's discretionary decisions. Once again, the Conservatives refused to listen to reason.

Lastly, we wanted to clarify the procedure for interviews requested by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We suggested that the government allow individuals to be accompanied during these meetings. The government has done away with the right to legal advice and the presence of a lawyer. We wanted a fairer process for applicants, but the Conservatives rejected our amendment.

In conclusion, our party will not support Bill C-43 because of its impact on the immigration process, the government's unwillingness to consider our amendments and the fact that this measure is at odds with our legal system. Contrary to what the Conservatives would have everyone believe, we do not support criminals. We support immigrants and Canadians. The Conservatives' stubborn determination to go it alone, to decide unilaterally, to avoid debate and discussion, will have consequences. The first of these will be a defective policy whose flaws will soon become clear.

Like Bill C-31 and Bill C-38, Bill C-43 is yet another stain on the Conservatives' immigration record. Once again, the government's actions are out of touch with reality and it is failing to consider the consequences of its actions. Once again, this government has refused to improve its laws in the interests of immigrants and Canadians. Once again, this government has taken a backward approach that conflicts with the interests of Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find it a little strange that the member would describe the bill as “demagogic”, since her speech was entirely demagogic and had an unbelievably ideological tone. I do not understand why the NDP are so confused when it comes to legal permanent residents—immigrants who come here and obey our laws—and criminals who should be deported.

I would like to answer the NDP member across the floor. He said that the Rizzuto family could easily enter into Canada. I would ask the member to read clause 17 of the bill currently before us, Bill C-43. This clause would deny entry for members of the family of somebody who is inadmissible under section 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This includes people involved in organized crime. If they want to deport citizens who have committed crimes with that family, that is different. Maybe the NDP would like to introduce a bill to revoke the citizenship of criminals, but that would be a little extreme.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, is it not my colleague who should answer that? Can he? Okay.

Let us talk about demagoguery. I think this government is very demagogic. It has proven this many times. When the fundamental elements of debate are not allowed, when the substance of bills cannot be addressed in this House, when we are subjected to so many time allocation motions, that is what I mean by demagoguery.

Since Bill C-43 was supposed to be discussed in committee, since we should have been able to debate it and propose amendments, which instead fell on deaf ears, of course, then we should have been able to debate it again here in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative member after Conservative member has stood up and cited the Clinton Gayle case. For the record, Gayle did appeal a deportation order, 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 negligence, and the department settled the suit. The reason Gayle remained in Canada was the department's incompetence in his removal.

I am wondering if the member would agree with members of the Liberal Party by making a statement that if the government really were sincere and genuine in wanting to get criminals who do not have Canadian citizenship quickly removed from Canada, it would be far more effective to put in the resources that are necessary for our border control and immigration, so that these types of incidents do not occur. This legislation would not have prevented the killing of an RCMP officer, contrary to what members of the Conservative Party say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He alluded to the department's incompetence, and I completely agree with him on that.

And yes, there are not enough resources, not just for CBSA services, but also for services to the public. In this file, cuts are causing huge problems with the processing of cases.

Once again, rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a small minority of foreign criminals, why are the Conservatives not helping new Canadians to be reunited with their family members?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, rather than getting to the main portion of my speech I will make some references to quotes of various people. They are not the members in the House who have been exchanging comments back and forth, but people who are independent of the House.

The first one is Martin Collacott of the Centre For Immigration Policy Reform, while he was on the Roy Green Show, on June 23, 2012. He said:

What that means is that someone who we should be getting rid of immediately can stay for months and years, even decades by a whole series of appeals that they launch. And if you've been found guilty by a Canadian court, convicted and served time, surely that’s enough to say that you’re a danger to Canadian society.

This is not a question of due process. Due process has already happened. With respect to deportation and appeals, people have been convicted and they have appealed. That appeal period may have expired and they are perhaps spending time in jail.

He said that someone should not be given months and years of appeal to prevent their removal. Why would he say that? Many would say it is simply because what it does is allow them to continue to offend and commit crimes, so we have to look at the victims in Canadian society.

Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, had this to say:

These are common sense solutions that are necessary to help our members protect their communities. The problem has become that the criminals we catch are becoming increasingly aware of ways to game the system, abusing processes that were put in place with the best of intentions.

While testifying before the immigration committee on October 31, 2012, he went on to say:

The issue for me as a front line officer and what I get from my members is this. I support fair process. It's obviously an important piece of our society and what Canada stands for, but you have to balance the rights of Canadians to live in their homes and not be afraid of being victimized against the rights of people who were convicted of serious criminal offences and whom we see all the time, particularly on the criminal side, continuing to commit offences while they're appealing. I say we shouldn't use Canadians as an experiment.

That is a good point.

Sharon Rosenfeldt of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime had this to say:

Cutting short foreign criminals’ opportunity for lengthy appeals will go a long way in minimizing and preventing the re-victimization of those innocent Canadians who are the victims of foreign offenders.

We are talking about those who have gone through due process, have been convicted and are to be deported. Then they go through another process, an appeal process. We had many examples cited here today where it has taken years and years to dispose of that case. Bill C-43 eliminates one aspect of that, to shorten the time and to get those people deported when they should be.

The fact is that most Canadians would support that kind of action. The opposition should do that when the bill comes up for the vote shortly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 10.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.