Corneliu Chisu

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, obviously the military situation is evolving in a very positive way. Once the situation is resolved, the aid that we have already committed will be able to resolve the humanitarian situation that exists in Mali today.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I can tell the hon. member that we are investing in the country. We are monitoring the situation and how it is evolving on the ground.

I can walk the walk and talk the talk and tell the hon. member what is going on right now on the ground. Basically there was a meeting with the West African chiefs of staff, who committed 5,000 troops. They committed more troops to AFISMA and to help rebuild Mali.

The situation is being monitored and we committed money for that, and we will see how the situation evolves.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I would like to answer my colleague's great question.

First, to be able to work on the climate, we need to have a safe and secure environment. That means we need to get rid of the terrorist activities. We need to establish peace in the country first, and that is the main going on right now.

Right now, with lightning speed, the French, followed by the African troops, re-secured and basically liberated the territory from Islamic forces. However, another problem is now keeping that land. In the military it is not enough to defeat enemy forces, but all the ground has to be kept

Once a safe and secure environment is established, Canada is there to help, and I heard tonight that a lot of funds have been committed to Mali. They were committed before the situation deteriorated with the Islamic forces.

Absolutely, I think that the government is monitoring the situation. I am not a member of cabinet, but I am quite sure that persons who are more competent than I am are doing the monitoring in this regard.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to lend my voice to today's important take note debate as a humble parliamentarian and a former Canadian military member with service in Afghanistan.

The situation in Mali is of serious concern to all of us. Our government has long been committed to combatting terrorists worldwide. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been leading our government's approach in Africa and elsewhere to help build the capacity of countries so they are better able to protect their populations from the threat of terrorists. The Canadian armed forces has also played an important role in this whole of government approach, training security forces in west African countries.

Terrorist groups and criminal networks have recently been gaining ground in northern Mali, posing not only a threat to the security and stability of Mali, but also to the Sahel and wider western African region. The terrorist presence in the north was reprehensible, sowing fear and destruction village by village. For example, in the historic city of Timbuktu, these extremist groups desecrated tombs, smashed graves and holy shrines and destroyed irreplaceable monasteries from the 13th century.

Just before Christmas, the United Nations Security Council recognized the gravity of this situation as a threat to the international community as a whole and passed resolution 2085.

In January the security situation in Mali deteriorated rapidly even further as heavily armed Islamist groups began to press south. This also had the potential to endanger Bamako, the capital of Mali, with a population of almost two million people. At the request of the Malian president and in line with United Nations Security Council resolution 2085, the government of France launched a military operation on January 11 to stop that advance and stabilize the security situation in the country.

This operation enables the African-led international support mission to Mali to take over the lead and help Mali recover its territorial integrity and full sovereignty.

Currently the French-led response in support of the Malian forces involves the participation of neighbouring African countries from the economic community of west African states, or ECOWAS. It also has the support of key allies and partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and the European Union.

For our part, Canada is undertaking a coordinated wall of government response. That has always been our government's approach to unstable areas suffering insurgent activities and will remain so. As the Prime Minister stated, we are committed to working diplomatically with our allies to determine the best course of action. At the same time, Canada continues to provide humanitarian aid and development assistance to the region, with a particular emphasis on food security.

Our government has also clearly set out the parameters for Canadian military contribution to this mission. Canada is prepared, consistent with UN Security Council resolution 2085, to provide limited and clearly defined logistical support to assist the forces that are intervening in Mali. Our government is not and will not be considering a direct Canadian combat role in Mali.

In fitting with these parameters and the response to an urgent request from our French partners, our government agreed to provide heavy lift aircraft to France for a limited period and we provided it with lightening speed. A C-17 Globemaster was quickly deployed on January 15, with approximately 40 military personnel for an initial period of one week. The Minister of National Defence was at CFB Trenton to wish the crew and personnel a safe departure. At the future request of the government of France, Canada extended the commitment of its C-17 Globemaster aircraft until February 15.

As we speak, members of the Canadian armed forces are working with their French colleagues, flying essential equipment, supplies and personnel between France and Bamako. They have already transported over half a million pounds of cargo. Canada is making a critical contribution. In fact, France's ambassador to Canada recently said that logistics was something essential and really invaluable in the present situation.

Canada is one of only a small number of countries that can provide this very important capability on such short notice. It is a contribution that has allowed our French and African partners to stop the terrorist groups from moving south and to make important gains on the ground.

French troops are now refocusing on the north, progressively securing key villages and towns, such as Timbuktu, and they conquered the last stronghold of the insurgents, the town of Kiddal.

This mission reflects the high degree of readiness of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It has proven this ability time and time again, proudly showing the Canadian flag and supporting operations over Canadian territory, Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan and now over Mali, as well as in some 15 other ongoing missions, whether at sea in the Arabian Gulf, or on the ground, training in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Armed Forces' effort in Mali underscores the continued importance of having an agile and versatile expeditionary force for the future. This is why our government is committed to investing in the modern equipment it needs.

Early on, our government was quick to recognize that the changing and uncertain global environment required Canada's military to have its own reliable, independent access to strategic airlift. I would note that in the time I was deployed in Afghanistan, I was thankful that the government provided this capacity.

As members may recall, our government went ahead and acquired the C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, so we are not relying anymore on the AN-24s or Russian aircraft.

Only 12 days after entering service with the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada's first C-17 carried out its initial mission, delivering emergency relief supplies to the people of Jamaica in the wake of Hurricane Dean. It was called upon yet again to transport troops and deliver supplies in Haiti's darkest hours during Operation HESTIA. It has done yeomen service in Afghanistan, alongside other key investments, such as the Hercules and Chinook aircraft, the light armoured vehicles and the Leopard 2 tanks that helped save countless Canadian lives.

Once again, we are seeing these investments pay off, to the benefit of Canada, to the benefit of our allies and, today, to the benefit of our efforts in Mali. We are proud that the Canadian Armed Forces are able to make such a critical contribution.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated, we will continue to monitor the situation closely, consult with allies and update Parliament as events unfold.

However, let me emphasize that Canada's commitment to countering the global cancer of criminal networks and terrorists is steadfast, because it is important to the security of Canada, to the safety of Canadians.

I know that the members of this House will agree, and I encourage them to express their support.

[Petitions, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by nearly 1,000 Afghani Canadians, including those from my riding of Pickering—Scarborough East, calling for the establishment of a consular and immigration office in Kabul, Afghanistan. The petitioners note, among other things, the deteriorating conditions in the Islamabad office in Pakistan, which currently handles many of the consular and immigration requests originating in Afghanistan.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I am not a lawyer. I am a professional engineer.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. I am doubtful that misrepresentation is the fruit of some bad lawyers. I have a great respect for the law profession. Our bill raises the bar to five years because people should not lie. We will not encourage lying in this country.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for Canadians. It is not for criminals.

The fact is that we need to remove criminals from this country for the safety of our country. The former legislation came with a heavy cost. Let us look at this legislation. How much can the taxpayers be expected to pay for the removal of a criminal from this country when it takes six, seven or eight years? That is a very important point. I invite my colleague to support Bill C-43, which will do exactly that. It will remove foreign criminals from the country and will save the Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals. I am proud to stand in support of the bill and against the opposition amendments that try to gut this important bill.

Over the past few months, the Government of Canada has put forward a number of initiatives aimed at bringing transformational change to the country's immigration system. In doing so, the government has two broad but complementary goals.

First, we aim to foster an immigration system that can fill significant labour shortages across the country and help us meet our economic needs more quickly and efficiently. It is a system designed to give newcomers the best possible chance to succeed.

Second, as we move forward with these changes we are implementing policies that safeguard the integrity and security of our immigration system. I believe that the security and integrity of the immigration system go hand in hand with that system's ability to best serve our society, our economy and our country.

Through Bill C-43 we are fulfilling a longstanding commitment to take action on a problem afflicting our immigration system. Measures in the bill would close some of the loopholes that allow individuals found inadmissible to Canada to remain in the country long after their welcome has worn out.

The government is committed to the safety and security of Canadians. The bill is a strong expression of that commitment. Indeed, the changes proposed in the legislation would increase our ability to protect Canadians from criminal and security threats. At the same time, we are also strengthening our immigration program and facilitating entry for some low-risk visitors. These tough but fair measures would ensure that foreign criminals would not be allowed to endlessly abuse our generosity.

The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants to Canada are honest, hard-working, law-abiding Canadians, and they rightfully expect all Canadians, including all newcomers, to be the same. As a result they, maybe more than those born in Canada, want the government to crack down on criminals and to remove them from our country.

In every culture and community I visit there is strong support for the bill. Canadian families, whether they moved here from another country or were born here, want to feel safe. They want the government to protect their safety and security. Bill C-43 would do just that. Unfortunately, there are many examples of how convicted foreign criminals are delaying their deportation and committing more crimes while they remain in Canada: murderers, drug traffickers and thieves, some of whom are on most-wanted lists.

Let me relate just two out of the countless examples. Geo Wei Wu, born in China, came to Canada as a student and gained permanent residency as a spouse in 1990. Over the next two decades he went on to be convicted of a series of crimes including attempted theft, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, criminal harassment, assault causing bodily harm, break and enter, fraud and the list goes on. He served time for each of these convictions and by 2008 he was found inadmissible and a removal order was issued. Under the current rules he was entitled to appeal the order. The appeal process took almost two and a half years and ultimately failed. Wu's appeal was dismissed. Wu then disappeared after failing to show up for his pre-removal interview. The CBSA posted his information on its wanted website last summer. Just a few weeks ago media reported that he is now wanted by the Peel Regional Police in connection with a kidnapping last year of two men in Mississauga. He is still at large.

Here is another example. Patrick Octaves de Florimonte arrived as a permanent resident from Guyana in 1994. Within two years of his arrival he was convicted of a serious crime, assault with a weapon. Less than a year later he was convicted of two more crimes, theft and possession of a narcotic. Six months later he was convicted once again of assault. Just six more months passed and he already faced yet another conviction, uttering threats. We can already see a pattern here. In December 2005, de Florimonte was convicted of five counts of trafficking in crack cocaine. For this crime he received his first sentence of longer than six months. Shortly after serving his 13-month sentence he was convicted once again of assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

De Florimonte was deported for criminal inadmissibility in October 2006, but he was able to delay his removal when he filed an appeal with the Immigration Appeal Division. His appeal was declared abandoned after he failed to show up for his hearing, but he was then able to reopen his appeal. The IAD automatically dismissed his appeal, but he was able to further delay his removal once again when he asked the Federal Court to review his decision. The court denied his request in March 2011, and in October 2011 when he failed to report for his removal, a warrant was issued for his arrest. That is five years after he was initially ordered deported for criminal inadmissibility.

Under our laws, if foreign nationals are sentenced to six months or more, those individuals are subject to removal, but under the current system they still have access to the Immigration Appeal Division as long as their sentence is less than two years.

Another example among many possible examples is the case of an individual named Jackie Tran, who was born in Vietnam and became a permanent resident in January 1993 when he was 10 years old. By his late teens he had become known to law enforcement officials in Calgary and was first convicted at the age of 19 for cocaine trafficking. We attempted to deport him for six years, yet despite having a long criminal record as a gangster and a major drug trafficker, he had never received a sentence of more than two years less a day. Thanks to repeated appeals, he was able to continuously delay his deportation. He was first ordered deported in April 2004 and was not removed from Canada until March 2010.

Another example would be Gheorghe Capra, who had more than 60 counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and so on. His sentences ranged from two days to two years less a day. He was given a removal order in 2003 and was finally removed in 2009.

Under the current system, too many of these foreign criminals have been able to appeal deportation orders and extend their time in Canada following convictions. Serious criminals sentenced to imprisonment for any time less than two years have been able to delay or permanently set aside their removal orders. Last year alone 250 foreign criminals were able to appeal their deportation. As the president of the Canadian Police Association has said, 850 is too many.

The fact is that the current system needs to be fixed. Bill C-43 would do just that. It would ensure that while foreign criminals receive due process, they do not receive endless process. It would ensure that serious foreign criminals are deported from Canada more quickly, and in doing that it will help protect the safety and security of hard-working, law-abiding Canadians.

I urge the NDP and the Liberals to stop opposing this bill and to work with our Conservative government to ensure Bill C-43's speedy passage.

[Public Safety, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to giving police forces the tools they need to keep our streets and communities safe.

After a serious crime, the thugs and criminals who make up street gangs across the country are able to intimidate witnesses into silence. This can become a huge barrier to police taking dangerous criminals off the street and putting them behind bars where they belong.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell the House what our Conservative government is doing to ensure an effective and reliable witness protection program?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the summary trial system and the opposition's claim that it is not constitutionally fair, could the hon. member tell us any of the former chief justices who have reviewed the system and ever said that?