Vic Toews

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a),the 2010 budget operating freeze called for general containment of expenditures through key restricting measures.

One of the key measures impacting Public Safety Canada, PS, is the one calling for increases in wages and salaries resulting from collective agreements negotiated in the period from the 2010-11 to 2012-13 fiscal years, to be funded within the PS’ existing appropriations. As such, no additional funding was provided in 2010-11 to fund the 1.5 per cent increase in annual wages for the federal public administration, and PS is required to reallocate from its existing operating budget to fund these increases. Based on PS’ existing workforce for 2010-11, this measure translates into an increase in our salary expenditures of $845,000, including 17 per cent employee benefits plans, which PS is required to absorb. PS will also be required to fund the cost of economic increases resulting from collective agreements negotiated in 2011-12 and 2012-13 through reallocations from its existing reference levels.

PS has put in place rigorous financial planning and reporting practices that better support timely and informed decisions on the allocation of resources to ensure the efficient and effective management of objectives and priorities. This process has enabled PS to closely monitor the financial situation in 2010-11 and to exercise informed decisions in the reallocation of any departmental flexibility to support operating requirements. This has in turn provided the necessary latitude to realign resources to meet priorities and manage the added cost of negotiated economic increases within PS’ operating budget.

Through its integrated business and human resources plan, PS has been successful in articulating a strategic approach in support of an effective deployment of its resources to support the achievement of priorities and key initiatives. This tool will prove instrumental in guiding the department through its management of expenditure containment measures over the next two fiscal years.

PS has also successfully managed to maintain its use of overtime over the past three years and is currently in the process of evaluating additional control measures to better support the impact of future years’ unfunded wage increases.

In budget 2009, the government announced that spending on travel, hospitality and conferences would be capped at 2008-09 levels for 2009-10 and 2010-11. Budget 2010 reaffirmed the commitment to maintain the cap on spending at the 2008-09 levels of departmental spending in these areas. Through prudent management, PS has successfully reduced its spending on travel, hospitality and conferences over the last two fiscal years. This has resulted in savings of more than $1 million in 2009-10 and further savings of approximately $210,000 in 2010-11.

The Government of Canada introduced a new expenditure management system in 2007 as part of an on-going commitment to better manage government spending. A key pillar of this system is the ongoing assessment of all direct program spending, or strategic reviews. Budget 2010 held this commitment with the intent to maximize savings in future strategic reviews. PS’ contribution in respect of the 2009 round of strategic reviews resulted in total savings of $7.3 million to its 2010-11 reference levels; $1.1 million of which is in operating expenditures. In this respect, PS will achieve more sizeable savings in 2011-12 of $13.4 million to its reference levels, $3.1 million of which are in operating expenditures.

In response to (b), PS’ departure rate for 2010-11 was 14.1 per cent, an improvement from last fiscal year’s 16.6 per cent. For the 2010-11 fiscal year, figures compiled on the nature of terminations show that of the 157 terminations that occurred during this period, 119 employees or over 75 per cent of the departures are attributed to employees that have transferred out of PS to other federal government organisations, with the remaining portion mostly being distributed between retirements, 17 employees or over 10 per cent; and end of specified period,8 term employees or 5 per cent.

In response to (c), no full-time or part-time employees were laid off in 2010-11 as a result of the impacts of the 2010 operating budget freeze measures.

In response to (d), during 2010-11, 117 full-time employees and three part-time employees were hired.

In response to (e), the projected departures rates for the next five years can only be estimated based on past trends of departures. On the basis of the calculated yearly average rate of departures over the three fiscal years, including PS’ estimated rate for this year, the average departure rate for PS is estimated to be around 15 per cent over the next five fiscal years. Based on the same methodology of calculation, 81 per cent of the departure rate is forecasted to be attributable to employees transferring out of PS, while 11 per cent will likely be linked to retirements. The future years’ impact of the 2010 budget operating freeze has not been factored in this extrapolation and could impact the future years’ forecasted departure rate.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2010 annual report of the RCMP's use of the law enforcement justification provision.

This report addresses the RCMP's use of specified provisions within the law enforcement justification regime which is set out in sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.

[Public Safety, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we support law-abiding Canadians who selflessly give their time to coach, to volunteer with vulnerable groups, such as children, people who need to go to work.

That is why we are pleased to announce that live scan technology will reduce waiting times for these vulnerable sector checks. It is good news for volunteers, it is good news for employees, and it is good news for vulnerable Canadians who deserve the best protection possible.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the difficulty is that when a ship arrives at the border of our country at a port and there are 100, 200, or 300 people without identification. There is no way of determining who is the criminal, who is the legitimate refugee and who is an economic immigrant.

That determination has to take place over a period of time. These measures are designed in order to ensure that Canadian authorities can determine who these individuals are. That is what Canadians expect, that those who arrive at our borders, if they do not have appropriate documentation for one reason or another, that in fact there is a mechanism for ensuring that those who come to our country do not come with evil intent.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I can confirm the concern that many Canadians, including new Canadians, have. Many new Canadians have family members who are waiting in the queue, so to speak, to come to this country.

Canada is a very generous country. Under our government we accept record numbers of immigrants and over 250,000 refugees. On a per capita basis, Canada accepts more refugees than any country in the world. We are very proud of that.

It must be very frustrating to many of the new Canadians when they see criminal organizations bringing individuals here who jump that waiting time.That is disappointing for many Canadians who say that they are playing by the rules and are carrying out what they are required to do. They want to know why this is being allowed to happen.

This is a response to keep the integrity of the immigration system and target criminal activity.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I understand that he directed that to you, whether you would withdraw the words.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, let me clarify my remarks. I certainly did not mean any intention to commit a criminal offence by this member or any other member. However, it is a consistent pattern by both those parties that they put the rights of criminals ahead of the interests of victims or law-abiding Canadian citizens.

In fact, in 1971, I assume that was in the Trudeau cabinet, one of the predecessors to this office, Solicitor General Goyer, said in effect that in this country we have considered the interests of public safety far too long and we will now consider the rehabilitation of criminals as paramount, at that point standing the entire criminal justice system on its head.

What our government does in marked contrast to Liberals and New Democrats is put the justice system back onto--

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, let me deal with some of the preamble. The criteria the minister must consider to designate are set out in the act. If those criteria are utilized in unreasonable fashion, having consideration for all of the circumstances, then that is obviously reviewable in the superior court by way of judicial review. Therefore, the minister has to address his or her mind to all of the circumstances and look at the criteria in the act. I would commend those criteria to the member's attention.

In respect of a 12-year-old child, there is a specific exemption in terms of vulnerable individuals in these groups who can be released earlier. The purpose of the detention is in order to determine identity, which takes some time to determine when individuals have, for example, arrived in our country without any identification documents at all.

Many times individuals get on to planes, for example in that circumstance, with identity documents and, assuming those circumstances, they get off the plane without identity documents. That, in my opinion, raises a suspicion that something is wrong. Whether that is irregular arrival or not is something else.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am quite disappointed that the New Democrats and the Liberals would refuse consent. It certainly is a matter of urgency. However, this is fairly typical of both of those parties. They are more concerned about furthering criminal operations as opposed to actually stopping criminals from gaining access to our country.

The motion was a very reasonable one in moving the bill forward so our law enforcement agencies, our immigration, CBSA and others would be in a position to help secure our borders and determine identity in a timely fashion so human smugglers could not take advantage of our country.

It is unfortunate the New Democrats and the Liberals would oppose that unanimous motion, but this is a democracy and that is the rule of the House.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, June 21st, 2011]

moved that Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your election.

It is a great privilege for me to rise in the House today with respect to the sponsorship of Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act.

Over the last few months, all of us have heard a great deal about the importance of the legislation before us today, which our government first introduced October 2, 2010, as part of an overall strategy to help put an end of human smuggling.

We have heard from ordinary Canadians that they want our borders to stay open to newcomers who play by the rules when they come to our country, but firmly shut against those who would abuse our generosity, threaten the integrity of our immigration system and pose a risk to our safety and security.

They have told us they want Canada to remain the welcoming country it has always been for newcomers. However, they have also told us that human smuggling operations must be stopped.

The arrival of two migrant vessels from Southeast Asia over the past two years, the MV Ocean Lady and the MV Sun Sea, have proved the reach and determination of organized human smuggling networks in their efforts to target Canada.

We have heard from experts in the field that Canada is the destination of choice for human smugglers and that criminal networks are evolving and adapting to utilize more sophisticated ways of moving their cargo.

Canada, therefore, needs to be ever more vigilant and more aggressive in cracking down on the ringleaders of this worldwide criminal operation, not less, as some have suggested.

The truth is that human smugglers are not at all interested in helping individuals in need. They do not care about individuals. They do not care about families. They make victims of their passengers, who must pay dearly, and risk their lives to undertake perilous journeys. Human smugglers only care about money and are working every day to increase the profits from their illegal activities.

Most of all, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to continue building on our track record of making our streets and communities safer for everyone by cracking down on criminals and organized crime groups however they may operate and from wherever they may operate.

One way our government intends to do that is by passing legislation this fall to, among other things, tackle organized drug crimes and establish tougher sentences and mandatory jail terms for child molesters and those who use the Internet for this purpose.

We will end house arrest for serious and violent offenders. We will bring measures to ensure pardons can be refused in cases involving serious crimes against children. We will equip our police with new investigative powers designed for the computer age.

Our government was quite clear in our 2011 platform that such legislation would be passed within 100 sitting days of the return of the House, and ours is a government that delivers on its commitments.

We were equally clear in our platform that another way our government would continue to stand on guard for Canada and protect the safety and security of Canadians would be by cracking down on human smuggling. That is why we are here today. Bill C-4 is all about that. It is about delivering on our commitments to Canadians. It is about standing on guard for Canada and taking action to keep our streets, communities and borders safe.

Bill C-4 would, first and foremost, crack down on those criminals who would abuse our generous immigration system and endanger the safety and security of our Canadian communities.

We are providing a strong deterrent to those who are organizing human smuggling operations to jump the queue into Canada and we are ensuring the integrity and fairness of Canada's immigration system for years to come.

Under this act, our government would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate the arrival of a group of persons as an irregular arrival and make those involved subject to the act's measures. It would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers. It would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences on convicted human smugglers. It would hold shipowners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations.

As part of the legislation, designated arrivals would face mandatory detention for up to one year to allow Canadian authorities to determine admissibility and illegal activity. In short, the detention period would provide more time to identify those who had arrived in our country and whether they posed a threat to our national security. Canadians deserve nothing less.

That provision is no different than the provision that occurs on a regular basis inside our criminal court system. Many of us who have been involved either as prosecutors or defence lawyers in the court system understand that if an accused person refuses to identify themselves, or if the court is not sure of the identity of the accused, the accused remains in custody until that determination can be made. The problem is it is so much more difficult when strangers arrive at our shores without any identification and we have no idea from where they are coming or who in fact they are.

Under the act, our government is also reducing the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling operations. This includes measures like preventing those who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival, including those who subsequently obtain refugee status, from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years.

The act would ensure that the health benefits participants receive would not be more generous than those received by other members of the Canadian public. It would enhance the ability to terminate refugee applications of those who would return to their country of origin for a vacation or would demonstrate in other ways that they were not legitimately in need of Canada's protection. It would also prevent individuals who participate in human smuggling events from sponsoring family members for a period of five years.

Bill C-4 is virtually identical to the legislation our government introduced in the House of Commons last year. There are minor revisions, most notably one which puts the responsibility for designating an irregular arrival event in the exclusive purview of the minister rather than delegating it.

As hon. members know, the legislation which our government introduced in the fall proposed that the Minister of Public Safety would be allowed to designate those who land on our shores, in a way similar to those aboard the MV Sun Sea or the MV Ocean Lady, as an irregular arrival. The minister would make such a designation when he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that establishing the identity or admissibility of the individuals coming to Canada as part of such an arrival could not be carried out in a timely manner or if he or she had reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrival of the group involved organized human smuggling activity.

The legislation before us today retains those provisions and adds another stipulating that the designation must be made by the Minister of Public Safety personally and cannot be delegated.

The measures which our government is proposing are tough, but they are fair. They are fair to those who legitimately and legally wait, or have waited in line for a better life in Canada. It is fair for all Canadians who rightfully expect that our borders and shores are protected and secure and our generous social systems are protected from abuse.

For those who want to jump the queue or target Canada for criminal gain, these measures are a message, clear and direct: Canada will not tolerate human smuggling and if one wants to come here there are fair, legal and legitimate means to do so.

These measures will enhance our ability to crack down on those who engage in human smuggling and try to exploit Canada's generous immigration system. They will strengthen our ability to protect Canada from criminal or terrorist threats and they respect our international obligations to provide assistance for those legitimate refugees who need our protection and help to start a new and better life.

Every year Canada welcomes nearly 14,000 refugees to our country. As a share of our population, that number represents more than any country in the world. Nothing in Bill C-4 changes this. Nor are there any provisions in the bill that would result in Canada returning someone to face torture or risk to their life in their native country.

From coast to coast to coast, Canadians want to help those in need or those who genuinely need our protection, but that does not make us naive and it does not make us pushovers. Canada and Canadians want tough measures to stop those who would abuse our generosity from becoming part of Canadian society.

We know that threats exist and that we must remain vigilant. That is why our government is taking action. That is what our government is doing today, and this is what we will continue to do in the future.

I would therefore urge all hon. members to support the legislation before us today and work with our government to ensure its speedy passage.

I would like to propose a motion to the House dealing with the bill. We are approaching an adjournment, and as you know, Madam Speaker, during the adjournment, we could be faced with another crisis like we faced with the MV Sun Sea.

Therefore, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the following: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.