Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 20, 1997

.1533

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.)): Today we're pursuing consideration of Bill C-237, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

We have the pleasure of having, from the Canadian Police Association, Neal Jessop, the president; Scott Newark, executive director; Paul Walter, Metropolitan Toronto Police Association; and Frank Marrocco. We're delighted to have you here and look forward to your input on this important bill.

Mr. Neal Jessop (President, Canadian Police Association): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the invitation. I'll be very brief, as Mr. Newark and Mr. Marrocco will in the main reply to your questions on the legalities of the legislation.

Our purpose here today is really brief. What we'd like to say to you as police officers, myself and of course Mr. Walter, who has extensive experience in Metro with these sorts of problems, is that these problems basically started for us as police officers with the Clinton Gayle matter. Clinton Gayle is the man who killed Todd Baylis, a police officer in Metro, some years ago. We became involved in this.

We knew then and we know now that there still are some serious problems with the expeditious use of the act in relation to deporting criminals from Canada. We're making recommendations here to you in relation to district court and provincial court judges, for example, being able to order deportation directly, subsequent to the serving of a sentence in Canada. We're going to make some representations in relation to travel documents.

.1535

In particular, I am going to describe to you a very difficult situation for police officers as it exists now. We hear that immigration warrants or deportation warrants are not going to be expeditiously put on our systems as of April 1, apparently because of some staffing difficulties that I understand you all know about. These sorts of things, coupled with the newspaper article in The Globe and Mail of October 2, give people like myself and Mr. Walter great consternation in relation to the department's dedication towards doing what government directs it to do.

We believe very strongly that Mr. Peric's bill is the way to go in relation to deportation. Practically speaking, we have always had a difficult problem catching up with these people once they're released from prison or they are identified in some other way in order to have them deported. We think the judicial area in the Criminal Code area will assist us in that.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Walter, who I'm sure will bring you some practical problems out of Metro.

Mr. Paul Walter (President, Metropolitan Toronto Police Association; Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Neal, Chair, and members of the committee.

I represent an association that has over 7000 members, of which 5000 are police officers. I can tell you that Metropolitan Toronto, as I'm sure you're all aware, is a very diverse community, probably the most ethnically diverse community in all of Canada. Believe me, we have enough domestic criminals without having to import criminals.

Constable Todd Baylis met his death as a result of Clinton Gayle executing him, and one other officer nearly met the same fate. Of course, with the deportation order and the warrants on file and nobody acting on them, it became very apparent that something was terribly wrong and had to be remedied.

Although we don't see the legislation or the amending Bill C-44 having met those objectives, part of the process was that the Metro force formed a fugitive squad. It's comprised of twelve police officers, six of them undercover and six more even more undercover than the first six, and supported with one person from Immigration Canada. I don't want to get molly-coddly about this, but these officers are tremendously dedicated officers working in and under some very adverse conditions.

Since the squad was formed less than three years ago, this unit, amongst many other hundreds of arrests, has arrested 34 people on warrants alleging that these people have committed murders. These are people from the United States and from other countries, primarily within the western hemisphere.

I've had discussions with them, because I thought the best place to go is right to the source, to the people who are actually doing the work and encountering problems with the administration and problems with the law and how to be able to deal with the tasks they've been charged with. These officers agree totally with the proposals in this proposed bill dealing with the presiding judge having not only the right but the mandate to make a determination with respect to the immigration status of any criminal convicted of a serious crime who is not a citizen of Canada and to make an immigration ruling at that particular point.

What we do find is that in many instances an individual has been sentenced to a fairly lengthy term of imprisonment, and when they're released on parole, they might have applied for, but have not yet received, an immigration hearing. They can be on the streets of certainly Metropolitan Toronto, or any street within Canada, waiting and just abusing, in our view, the entire right and privilege of having been in Canada. They're abusing our laws, virtually thumbing their noses at the government.

.1540

These officers have expressed a concern that, with regard to sentencing, criminals who have been deported and who have returned illegally to the country, should serve the remaining portion of their sentence in which they've been paroled, early parole. In addition, there should be a progressive form of sentencing for each and every subsequent occurrence of returning to Canada.

What they've recommended - this is from street-level police officers, such as detectives and detective sergeants who are with the fugitive squad - is that in addition to the remaining portion of their parole, a sentence for each breach should be on some progressive basis. It could be one year for the first time, two years of incarceration for the second time, and so on. This is so that the message gets home to those in their native countries that Canada is not going to be taking a cream puff position with regard to the deportation of serious, violent criminals.

I could go on for hours, but there are a couple of situations in which I think I can use an individual's name.

We have one individual, Colin Anthony Osborne, who's 31 years old. These were his sentences: trafficking in narcotics, one year; aggravated assault, eight years consecutive; use of a firearm, two years consecutive; possession of narcotics for the purposes of trafficking, one year; discharged firearm and endangered life, eight years consecutive; possession of restricted weapon, two years consecutive; and possession of narcotics, one month consecutive. On appeal, though, the total sentence was reduced to 10 years. This individual did a very short term of incarceration. Then, as a condition of parole, he was to return to his native country, which occurred. He was back in Canada in 40 days. At the time he was arrested back here in Canada, he was again carrying a firearm.

Most of these individuals receive a 30-day sentence, which in street terms they can do standing on their head.

I know of another situation with a chap by the name of Junior Speed. It's virtually the same type of situation with the same type of criminal record. It's like a revolving door.

These aren't just one or two isolated situations; they're regular occurrences. The problem is that it's getting to the point - in fact, it's well past the point - where there aren't police resources available to deal with all of the illegal immigrants who are committing violent, serious crimes against society.

Our members are not concerned in any way, shape, or form with the French nanny who may be here illegally and has lifted something from a department store. That's not part of their mandate or concern. Their concern is to remove violent criminals from the street, and hopefully from Canada, so they won't pose a threat to any of our citizens.

Here's one other area. There were quite a host of areas they alluded to. I'll just touch on the last one. They feel, in their professional opinion, from the job they're doing, that anyone applying for permanent residency within Canada must lodge a certified copy of their proof of citizenship from the country of origin. They must have that on file with Canada Immigration when they enter Canada.

As I'm sure you're all aware, many of these people will destroy their proof of citizenship, and then the onus is on Canada to prove that the individual actually came from a particular country. It's more than problematic. It's one in which police resources are almost exhausted in attempting to be able to prove where this individual originated from. So if in your discussions you can turn your minds to that particular aspect, we'd certainly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Mr. Frank Marrocco (Q.C., Canadian Police Association): Thank you.

.1545

I come at this from a slightly different perspective. I am the author of the annotated Immigration Act and I've produced that for the past 13 years. I had a group of lawyers and consultants in our firm, which is a large firm in downtown Toronto that practises exclusively in the area of immigration law.

I wanted to leave a couple of things with you. First of all, in my view, the proposal in the bill is fairer than the present system we have. The type of person who's going to become the subject of this legislation is a person, first of all, whose guilt in a criminal matter has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Secondly, the factual issues that would lead to the suggestion that they should be deported will have to be put before a judge, and the person will undoubtedly be represented by counsel.

Finally, if the person is ordered deported, they will have a right of appeal in the same way they can appeal a sentence they find to be unsatisfactory.

In my judgment, that is a fairer system than the system we have now. Presently, if you're a visitor, you don't have a right of appeal from the making of a deportation order. If you're a permanent resident, you can appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. If the minister certifies you as a danger to the public, then your right of appeal vanishes.

There's a whole host of litigation in the Federal Court surrounding the making by the minister of these determinations. The arguments in cases where material has been put before the minister, which has not been disclosed to the people concerned, are being litigated in the Federal Court. Every time there's a removal order, a certification, and an attempt to execute the removal order to actually get the person out of Canada, there also very often will be an application in the Federal Court for a stay or an injunction to prevent the person being removed until their Federal Court proceeding is concluded.

That whole series of proceedings will become condensed into one simple hearing before a judge of the criminal court. That will be a much more efficient process. It will also be much more transparent, because there could not be a suggestion that there was any material put before the judge that was not disclosed to the person in advance of the proceeding and not placed in the public record in the course of the trial.

The person will have the opportunity to respond, factual issue by factual issue, on the question of whether or not they should be deported. If they appeal, as they will have a right to appeal under this act, their appeal will be heard by the provincial court of appeal, which would hear their appeal from sentence in any event.

It collapses everything into one proceeding. From a timing point of view, it's much better, because the decision to deport, if that's the decision that's taken, is taken at the time the person is convicted, at the time they start more or less to serve their sentence. So in the circumstances surrounding their removal, the obtaining of travel documents and that sort of thing, you have time to put that into effect so the person can be removed at the time they're eligible for parole.

It's not only fairer, but it leads to it being a more efficient way of dealing with this problem. It certainly is not accurate to think it ends up being harsher than the present regime you have. In my judgment, and I have a fair amount of practical experience with these types of issues, this system is not harsher; this system is fairer. It's very odd that you get a system that's more efficient and fairer at the same time, but in my judgment it is. I would ask you to give some serious thought on that basis to the amendments.

The arguments are made from time to time that the decision whether or not to order somebody deported is a complex matter. It isn't. When the deportation decision is being made, as the case law is presently constituted, essentially whoever is making the decision looks at two things, and they are the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. These are essentially factual matters. Who is this person? How many crimes have they committed? How violent was it? What are their ties to Canada? You don't need Albert Einstein to work through these types of factual issues to try to arrive at a fair conclusion.

.1550

The decision of whether or not to order someone to be deported is not such a complex matter that it can only be left to people who are appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It would not be too complex a matter for a judge of the provincial court, whether it's the general division or the provincial division or the courts of appeal in the various provinces, to deal with.

The bill, in terms of one of the amendments suggested, will spell out what I thought was obvious anyway, which is that this in no way detracts from the minister's authority to remove people. This is not a substitution for that power; the minister's status is not diminished. All this does is create an arguably more efficient mechanism for dealing with the issue, but it should not be viewed in any way as legally undermining the minister's authority, because it doesn't do that.

What it does do, which may be objectionable, is it shares that jurisdiction a bit with the provincial court. To the extent that this becomes a question of turf and protecting one's own turf, I can't comment on it. I can only urge upon you my view that this system will actually work in the interests of the public better than the present one does.

The final thing I want to mention to you is that I participated in a conference here, which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sponsored, called Into The 21st Century: A Strategy For Immigration and Citizenship. One of the recommendations that was approved at that conference and that found its way into the report under the heading of ``Amendments to the Immigration Act'' was an amendment that would authorize judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing rather than requiring a separate step.

The idea embodied in the bill was actually endorsed by the public and by the people participating in that conference, which was a consultation by the minister with a whole host of people who were stakeholders in the immigration process. So this is not just an idea that finds favour with law enforcement authorities or with a specialized group. This is a proposal that I would suggest to you is endorsed by the people participating in the public consultations. It's a fairer process, it's transparent, and it's efficient, and I would ask you to give it your consideration.

Mr. Scott Newark (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): I'll just conclude, Madam Chair, if I might.

When our association first became involved in dealing with the problem, as Mr. Jessop has described, it actually reminded me in one sense of something I had encountered as a prosecutor back in Alberta. I think, Madam Chair, you'll probably remember the case specifically. It dealt with the Extradition Act and an individual named Charlie Ng, who was in our prisons. Our extradition legislation was so multi-layered that we found it extremely difficult to remove him. It took a long time and was extremely expensive.

What we realized as we got into it - I was helping some of the victims' families in the United States - was that in effect we had created a double-track system that really went through exactly the same factual issues but repeated itself over and over, with the minister stuck in the middle making a decision in relation to seeking assurances or not. We were able to change that law and put those tracks together.

It also reminded me of the time as a crown when I first started thinking that what would be truly the creative part of criminal law or of any kind of law would be the substantive matters. In fact, at least as a prosecutor, what turned out to be among the most creative were the procedural matters and how the systems actually dealt with what a given problem was and how they found the most effective and most fair way of dealing with something.

.1555

So I echo Mr. Marrocco's comments. What are really contained in Bill C-237 are procedural amendments. They're amendments that are designed to make the system work better, be more equitable, that frankly contain some protections in recognition of the phenomena of some people who have been here for years and years and years, essentially, and then commit a serious crime. Yet we now have the ability under the current act to simply remove them.

I would suggest, as I have to the immigration officials I've met with, that it is not unconstitutional to be efficient. It sometimes seems to be the perception that if we are doing something more efficiently, it therefore must be unconstitutional. That is flat out wrong.

I want to talk to you very briefly - and I do intend to be very brief, and hopefully we can deal with some of it in questions - about some of the results of the current process. I say this as a result of discussions we have had with the immigration department over the last six months or so. There was a break. Initially we became involved in discussions following the murder of Constable Baylis in dealing with the then minister, Mr. Marchi. But the process we had in place then, or even with the amendments in Bill C-44.... I guess I'd put it this way. I think what you're hearing from the people who work on the street is that what it is we had then, or what we have with Bill C-44 now, is not working very well. The object of the exercise is not simply to get a process that issues somebody a deportation order faster; it is instead to have that deportation order not only issued faster but acted on faster, and acted on in such a way that it's far more effective.

Some of the practical realities of the way our system works right now are, I must tell you, that it has an effect on things like bail or detention. The fact of our inability to get appropriate travel documents and, in our submission, our inappropriate focus on removing criminals and doing it expeditiously has resulted in a series of policies, which I have in front of me - the department was good enough to supply them - that in effect literally compel us to release people into the community while we await our inefficient system's attempt to get documentation to remove them.

You heard mention of travel documents. You may be interested to know that these travel documents, although they're called that, are really confirmations of citizenship. What happens is the country of origin acknowledges that person is in fact one of their own people. It is beyond me why we do not either retain the documents originally or acknowledge that whatever it was that was used to get in in the first place is not now, as a matter of law, good enough or enough to remove somebody after they've committed serious crimes.

Even more so is the fact that according to our system - and this comes from the immigration department - these travel documents are required to effect a removal. There's a bit of a twist, though, in Canada. To get one of the removal documents, the person must apply himself or herself. That is to say, if somebody who's been ordered deported for criminality doesn't apply for the document, the department's position is that they cannot apply for the document for them. Just in case anybody from the department may not agree with that, those words came to me from Mr. Neil Cochrane of the immigration department.

Mr. Jessop mentioned the priority on enforcement, and that really is what this bill is about, trying to give greater flexibility so there's a more expeditious priority given to removal of criminals from the country.

I want to conclude by telling you about the warrant section with the immigration department. I visited there. In my judgment, it is staffed by extremely dedicated, competent people. As you may know, this warrant section came into existence because of the Baylis case, because up to that point there was no full-scale enforcement of the warrants, or entry on the warrants, or interface of the FOSS system with the criminal systems. Literally, warrants were stacked in paper and cardboard cases in a warehouse in Mississauga - lost, as in the case of Clinton Gayle.

As a result of some public attention being focused on that problem, improvements were made. I regret to have to tell you that I am also advised that as a result of cutbacks to their staff likely effective April 1, 1997, that section will no longer be able to operate on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week basis, which they now do. These are the people who enter the warrants on the system. When the police phone in to say, we have somebody here, confirm the warrant, is this the person we're looking for.... If they are not able to operate on that basis, they will not be allowed to participate in the CPIC system. That is to say, they will shut down.

.1600

With the greatest of respect, it is an irresponsible priority of government to allow that kind of information source to shut down. We realized the necessity of it a number of years ago when a police officer was murdered. That's not something that's contained in legislation. No law can mandate that we must have the common sense to give immigration officials and police officers the tools to do the job, but it's important that you understand what motivates legislation like this, which is a priority to essentially make the system as efficient and balanced as it can be.

I have some other matters I'd like to share with you, but in the interests of time I'll stop here. I hope we can answer any questions you may have.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Thank you very much.

Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, B.Q.): Thank you, madam Chair.

[English]

I'm happy you are here again.

[Translation]

As I have already done in the House, I would like to congratulate my friend, Janko Peric, the member for Cambridge for having taken the initiative of tabling Bill C-37 in the House. I think his objective is a good one, but I can't share the means he wants to use to fight the problem of immigrant crime. I agree that the state has the right and the duty to defend and protect Canadian citizens against all criminals whether they're born here or have come from abroad.

I also wish to congratulate the police for the work they've done in fighting crime, especially in ethnic situations. I'm an immigrant myself, just as Janko Peric.

However, this bill raises a few other problems and a few difficulties that we mentioned not only in the ranks of my party, but that have also been mentioned within liberal ranks.

I was in the House when Mrs. Mary Clancy, then parliamentary secretary to Minister Marchi, rose to address this bill. She told us of serious reservations concerning this bill. I too have reservations.

Once again, I would emphasize that our police forces are doing good work, but they could do their work better, for example in the case of war criminals. Yesterday we were at a meeting where we heard a lot of criticism against the RCMP because there are still Nazis and war criminals who have been living here for years and years and who apparently hadn't even be spotted.

My first question has to do with the double sentence. The bill proposes that an ordinary court impose a sentence, but in addition, it can also order removal or deportation; what principle would allow us to do that, I wonder. We're suggesting to sentence the same person twice for the same crime. I don't know if you're legal people or if you only from the police services, but it's a legal problem that has already been raised a few times in the House.

[English]

Mr. Newark: Perhaps I can go first.

We already have a provision in the Immigration Act where somebody who's convicted of crimes can be deported on that basis. We already do it. It has already been approved. The only difference this bill will make is that it will take out probably at least one layer of bureaucracy, a whole lot of time, and probably a whole lot of money, and do it in actually a fairer fashion than what it does right now in the sense that the person facing deportation as a result of their criminality will have a much clearer demonstration of what it is they're being deported for.

You know, sir, you mentioned Mr. Rock yesterday in discussions on war criminals. The thing that always struck me about that is that the war criminals, I would have presumed, were hiding somewhere in our country. We're dealing with criminal criminals in here; they don't have to hide anywhere. They're in our courtrooms, and we're not able to remove them.

.1605

That's the point that drives us. We literally have an identification that says, in here, there are grounds to remove somebody. All we're trying to do is to say we can do a faster, fairer job of doing it.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: You know that presently, the courts cannot impose removal; that is in the purview of the department of Citizenship and Immigration whose specialized agents examine the matter. Ordinary courts are not very conversant with the very specific particulars of the Immigration Act, specially in the area of refugee rights and standards concerning the removal of citizens. The department has always taken care of that.

My second question concerns the bill and its objective to amend the Immigration Act as well as the transfer of Offenders Act. You know that there are treaties between Canada and some20 countries and they set out a few conditions for the transfer of offenders, whether they're Canadians who committed crimes abroad or foreigners who committed crimes in Canada and who can be transferred back to their country of origin. They are two conditions, in fact: the offender must ask for a transfer and the host country must also agree. How are you going to implement the bill if the other country doesn't agree? What country would like to take in an offender who has a complete20 year's sentence to serve? The costs for that country would be enormous. That's my second problem. The Transfer of Offenders Act is based on treaties, but it only works if both countries have signed the treaty and if both parties are in agreement. This bill would change that situation tremendously.

[English]

Mr. Newark: I couldn't agree more, sir, which is why, when this bill first came here in September 1995, we had hoped that these kinds of questions would be gotten into. It's been about eighteen months. We had hoped as well that perhaps the Government of Canada might have spent some time looking at how this could be implemented as opposed to coming up with reasons that some of its own ministers ultimately didn't agree with.

Obviously, we will have to negotiate agreements with other governments. We can't simply hand off people, as you say, to countries who don't want to take them. We will have to do that.

One of the things that I think will be necessary at either here or report stage is that a future proclamation date be set in on the bill. That will be necessary, obviously, because there's a lot of work to be done. It's unfortunate that the department hasn't started to do that so far.

We envisage, however - and this suggestion came to me from somebody in Metro Toronto - where we literally will sign agreements with other countries such that we will fund the return of the individual to serve the completed portion of their sentence in their own country as opposed to here. This idea actually came from a parole hearing I was sitting at, where somebody was serving a sentence in drug trafficking. The parole board member tried to make the point that they must have learned their lesson by having spent time in I think Warkworth, and how terrible it must have been in Warkworth. The fellow just said, no, it's really not all that bad. Everything is relative. I think that's the point.

So it was designed specifically to make it clear to people, as a deterrent, that if they are in this country and commit crimes they will not necessarily remain in this country to complete their sentence, nor will they be subject to all of the conditional release provisions in this country if we make a determination that we no longer want them to be part of this country, which is called deportation.

Your first point, sir, was that somehow our current criminal courts, judges, and prosecutors lack the expertise of the immigration officials to be able to carry this out. I wholeheartedly agree. I defer to Mr. Marrocco's expertise, however, as to what actually takes place in consideration of a deportation hearing.

I have to tell you, sir, having worked in a courtroom for twelve years, we have managed to adapt to all of the different and arcane provisions the federal justice department has foisted on us in changes to criminal law and procedure. We have just sent them a package of changes in bills C-41 and C-68 and a whole host of other bills.

.1610

My opinion, sir, is that the people who are there are every bit as competent to be able to discharge these duties as the people currently appointed under the immigration system.

Once again, obviously there are going to have to be discussions with provincial officials. The last estimate I got is that we spend about $100 million a year in the justice department in relation to immigration matters. There's going to have to be some transfer of funds.

Those are the kinds of discussions that should have started 18 months ago and that the department hasn't done anything about.

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): We'll do a second round. Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin, Ref.): Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I want to begin by thanking you for being here. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you and to ask some questions of you.

I have some concerns about this bill. Mr. Nunez has raised one of them. These are concerns I raised back in May of 1995, when I spoke to the first version of this bill as introduced by Mr. Peric.

I want to say that in principle I'm very much in favour of what this bill sets out to do. On the concern Mr. Nunez raised, and a couple of others I have, I would like to see either my logic corrected to show me where I'm not thinking correctly and the bill is okay or I would like the bill amended so that it is an effective piece of legislation. We have enough loose legislation that doesn't do what it was intended to do, and I would be sorry to see this be another example of that when this matter is so important, not only for you but also for all Canadians suffering the consequences of what's happening.

The first question I want to raise is really, I suppose, an issue of the charter - that is, whether giving a judge the power to deport a criminal would offer the criminal the argument that this is unfairness under the charter such that other Canadians would not have to face the threat of being deported. I believe subsection 15(1) of the charter says every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

Do you see this concern of mine as having any validity?

Mr. Marrocco: I don't, because section 6 of the charter indicates that only Canadian citizens have a right to come in to and remain in Canada. This section does not speak of permanent residents or anyone else having a similar right, so I don't see that there would be an equality argument when the charter quite clearly, in terms of your right to remain here, makes that distinction.

Mr. Newark: Can I add to that?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: You bet.

Mr. Newark: The current legislation already treats people differently based on their status under the act. If I'm convicted of a crime here I can't be deported under the current legislation, whether Mr. Peric's bill goes through or not. If somebody else who is under the jurisdiction of this act right now is convicted of a serious crime, they could be deported.

So it's already there. All that's really changing here is that we're doing it faster, more efficiently, and we think more fairly.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: All right, then.

Another issue that raises some concern for me is the area of discrimination as it relates to - gosh, I'm not a lawyer, and I have to keep thinking of these terms - whether a person has to stay in jail or whether he can be...

A voice: Out on bail?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, that's right, out on bail.

It would seem that if our criminal justice system is unable to carry through on a deportation it will have discriminated against the non-Canadian. Canadian criminals will be eligible for parole, and non-Canadians will not be eligible for parole and will have to serve their full sentence no matter what the circumstances surrounding their behaviour.

.1615

About bail, how long do they stay in jail? Would it be for the rest of their lives, or is this carrying the argument too far in thinking about what might be determined as discrimination against foreign criminals?

Mr. Newark: I can deal with the question about parole, because the bill does. It doesn't deal with bail. Nothing in it has an effect on what is currently done in relation to bail. However, a distinction is made about parole. Literally, if you read the mission statement of the National Parole Board of the Correctional Service of Canada and the purpose of parole logically and properly, it speaks of the desire to reintegrate somebody into society. That's why we do this. It's a good idea.

We are talking about dealing with people who have already been ordered deported, people we have already determined we don't want back in our society, reintegrated or otherwise. The point of it is it would be a finite distinction for people who had been ordered deported and who we have said we don't want in society. We don't see the logical consistency with releasing them early from a sentence to reintegrate them into society.

By the way, it would then deal with them only up to warrant expiry. If we are still so inefficient that we have not been able to remove them by that point we would still have the same problems we do right now.

You should know, by the way, that one of the things the government said was an accomplishment in their Bill C-44 was the fact that from now on essentially the parole board or CSC would be required to notify Immigration if they were going to release somebody who had been ordered deported. In fact they do release people who have been ordered deported on parole, which from our perspective, at least, is inconsistent internally. This would apply only to people who have been ordered deported and it would be only for those people we've already said we don't want to reintegrate into Canadian society anyway.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: What about families of people who have been designated for deportation? Who is responsible for them? Would it be the Canadian government, or are the families left to their own resources, or would they be deported with the offending individual? Do you have any answers about that?

Mr. Marrocco: A similar question has arisen about people who are now the dependants of people who have been deported, for example where a father is deported and the child is a Canadian citizen having been born here. The courts have said the decision of the mother or the child to join the father is a personal decision of those people. They have left it up to the individuals to decide, and they have declined to take those factors into consideration as a reason for permitting the deported person to stay and at times have even had objections to the status of those people to be heard. So if a person in your family is ordered deported and you have the right to remain in Canada, let's say because you're a citizen, the law seems to leave the decision to you whether you choose to go with the person or you choose to stay. It's a very difficult decision, but it seems to me the law has left that decision to the individual.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have just one more question. It relates to the word ``entered''. What does the word ``entered'' mean and to whom does it apply? Apparently it means the lawful permission for someone to come into Canada as a visitor. I believe that is also an amendment that needs to be looked at in this legislation.

Mr. Marrocco: I made that very observation myself. I think there's a suggestion that it should be changed slightly so it encompasses both persons who come in as visitors and persons who are here as permanent residents.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Marrocco: This issue came up. I think at some point down the road someone is going to suggest in committee that an amendment be made to make it clear that the bill is wider than just visitors.

.1620

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Ms Minna.

Ms Maria Minna (Beaches - Woodbine, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to some questions on the process in the bill.

Knowing the courts as they are in Toronto, certainly I can refer to Toronto, but also to some other parts of Canada. If a judge decides deportation is not warranted in the case of a violent crime, which happens, we have no guarantee that once the case goes to court the judge will do what we assume the judge is going to do. It may be that the judge decides this particular case doesn't warrant a deportation. What recourse does the federal government have then? Say in our opinion the minister would have, in her judgment, the department declare this person a dangerous offender or what have you, but because of appeals and because of whatever, the judge decides that this case doesn't warrant a deportation - humanitarian, family here; what have you. What recourse do we have then?

Mr. Newark: Actually, the phenomenon of going to court and finding a judge who doesn't do what you think is appropriate is not confined to immigration matters. We run into it ourselves.

Ms Maria Minna: It's all over the place. I break up the paper in the day and I read things, and somebody says, well, a husband who killed his wife gets five, six months and a slap on the wrist, and everybody screams. Well, why couldn't it happen in these cases? What recourse do we have, as the federal government?

Mr. Newark: The bill makes it clear that this is not an exclusionary process. We've met with Immigration officials over the last four or five months or so, and at their suggestion I believe you're going to see an amendment that will make that even clearer. That is, if the expedited process is not employed, that does not preclude the minister from exercising the process under here. In other words, it's a discretionary remedy as opposed to an excluding remedy.

Ms Maria Minna: Yes, but couldn't this individual, then, if I were the individual, have access to appeals in the court system even under the charter, because now you're applying double standards to me? You're saying the courts are saying...one judge says I can't go, I should stay, but then the minister can turn around and say, well, I don't want you to stay, I'm going to throw you out. It seems to me from the point of view of just pure rights that people have under the system, and due process, if one system of our due process says a person can stay, or at least the offence or what have you is minimized, and if then automatically another system clicks in that reassesses that and says well, no, you can't...isn't that double jeopardy? Then wouldn't this person have the right, especially if they are landed immigrants and they have been here a while and are not someone who is here illegally, who may not have access to our Supreme Court, though certainly the others would...wouldn't that create a whole other double...? I just see two tracks here, two different systems in parallel.

Mr. Newark: There are two tracks right now.

Ms Maria Minna: No, but all the way up.

Mr. Newark: Correct; right now there are all the way up. There's the determination of what it is we're going to deport somebody for. There's a trial process by which we go through and decide innocence or guilt. Then there's an appeal process all the way up on that. Then what happens right now is there is a separate track, and potentially a couple of other little sub-tracks off that, in a system where we determine, based on what we've already determined, whether or not the person should be removed.

What this bill would do is allow a discretionary process whereby the Crown could...I believe the way it's worded, even on its own motion the court could direct, at the same time as we've concluded the determination of facts, that they could decide to do this. If they don't choose to do that, the way this bill is drafted - to be made even more clear on the amendments - that would not preclude the current system from taking place. This is an expedited process.

There will always remain, in effect, where we decide to take our shot, if I could put it that way, whether it's in this track or in this track, which is what it is right now.... That would be the state's opportunity to exercise the removal process. But where it doesn't do it in the expedited process it does not preclude us from doing it under the normal process of the Immigration Act.

Mr. Marrocco: To follow up on that point, if the trial judge decided not to order deportation, there is a right of appeal. It's not only the accused person who can appeal. If the court of appeal in the province also decided the person ought not to be deported, it's hard to believe the minister at that stage...that there could possibly be any reason that would justify.... That would mean that two levels of courts had made in effect the same mistake and had made manifestly wrong decisions. I can see where it could happen at the trial level, but it's hard to believe that it would be sustained on appeal if it was as flagrant as you suggest. Surely if it was, then it's hard to imagine that the minister would still want to proceed in the face of that.

.1625

Ms Maria Minna: I'm trying to see where the efficiencies are and if in fact we are still dealing with a two-track system to some degree in cases that become contentious. Most of the time they do become contentious. These are never straightforward cases. If they were, they wouldn't be problematic to start with.

I'd like to discuss another aspect of the same problem. This is my personal feeling with regard to what I see happening quite often in the courts. Two things seem to be happening lately. The courts are plugged. I'm constantly reading in the paper about sexual assault cases that have been let go because they have been on the books for too long. What happens in the case where a person doesn't get to court and the case is dismissed? Does the department plug in at that point as well?

The other issue is plea bargaining. What happens if because of court procedures an individual manages to plea bargain the offence down, as happens so often? Then they're not deportable, are they, if the offence has been pleaded down?

Mr. Newark: I have two points. I'll deal with the last one first. If it's plea bargained in such a way that there is no deportation application brought, that would not preclude the normal process from taking place. It would still be there if it wasn't brought.

As to the second point about the courts being clogged and essentially there not being time for them to go on, it isn't generally the federal government - although perhaps we could look into that - that provides direct funding in relation to the administration of justice in the provinces.

But I think you make a very good point, and it's what this bill is really aimed at; that is, the most serious kinds of cases, which we think this expedited process should go to. I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that if, for example, those most serious kinds of cases are being dismissed because of delay and things being backed up too long, that should cause some kind of outcry.

I don't see how adding a function onto a sentencing in a select number of cases - and appreciate that we realize that there are increased responsibilities that should result in some change in dollars going on here - is necessarily going to create some kind of a backlog that is therefore going to cause cases to be dismissed.

I think it's fair to say that there definitely have to be some discussions with the provinces, particularly with the Province of Ontario because of Toronto having the largest problem, and also with Vancouver, I suppose. We should get on with those discussions, and we should find out how to do it. But in and of itself, I just don't think it's going to be a problem.

Mr. Jessop: I think if we're going to do it that way, it's just a matter of applying the same logic as to why we don't have enough officers to deal with the 10,000 warrants that exist now. That might happen. We just don't eliminate the opportunity to do it because it's a good thing to do. The fact is we don't have enough resources anywhere to do what we should do. But we still need these tools to get the job done.

Ms Maria Minna: I have one final question. I was trying to see in my own mind how this tracks with IRB. I was wondering if you could tell me how the deportation appeal process would be faster in the private courts than in the appeal division of the IRB, as we have it now. Looking at the court system and the caseload, why would this be any faster than what's happening now with the IRB?

Mr. Marrocco: I think implicit in the question is that something additional is really going to happen. Presently, if in a criminal matter you don't like the sentence, you can appeal. All that would happen is at the time you are sentenced there would be an added issue, which is whether or not you should be ordered deported, and if you were unsatisfied with the result there would be an added issue at the time you were appealing your sentence. So it won't increase the number of people convicted and it will not increase the number of appeals. It will just add one more issue to the one process and dispense with the need to duplicate that in the other process. There will be no need to prove the offence, no need to prove the circumstances, no need to prove the circumstances of the offender. In the immigration proceedings that bit of duplication will be gone. All that information will already be before the court that convicts the person of the offence in the first place. It's one-stop shopping in that particular sense.

.1630

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have some concerns here about the prospect. Equally compelling in many ridings is the understanding, certainly at the provincial level, that our courts are backlogged. Do you see this action as contributing to a further backlogging of the courts?

Mr. Newark: I think Mr. Marrocco has made the point in the sense of the cases. First of all, we're not deporting people because of their shoe size. We're talking about people who already have to go through a process to begin with in the criminal justice system. We're already taking up that time.

The issues we canvass in relation to deportation in large part are the issues that are dealt with in sentencing. I think you know what the essence of it is. What do you do with this offence, this offender? It's very similar in effect to what is taking place.

We acknowledge that because you're going to do anything...and if you're dealing with lawyers, it usually takes more time. That being so, though, there's a whole other track that it was not going to be necessary with all the funding that goes with that. Those are discussions that are going to be necessary. It's why we recommend that the bill have some kind of future implementation date on it in the sense of proclamation.

But as a reason for not doing it, by all means no.

Mr. Marrocco: I don't have anything to add to that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Could you expand on the suggestion made earlier that somehow this would not bring about a challenge under the charter?

Mr. Marrocco: You can challenge anything under the charter if you really are imaginative enough, but in terms of dealing with it in a substantive way and in terms of the merits, in my own opinion I fail to see how a meaningful challenge could be addressed. First of all, the guilt of the accused is beyond a reasonable doubt. The person is represented by counsel. The factual issues the prosecutor relies on are on the table and put out in the open. Then there's a right of appeal if you're dissatisfied with the result. I would think that's about as much of a procedural safeguard as a person could reasonably expect, and I really don't see a charter challenge.

Under the present system there have been a number of charter challenges dealing with the way the minister has certified people as a danger to the public. There have been a number of legal challenges and the suggestion in some of the cases that material is before the ministerial decision-maker that the person concerned wasn't aware of. That cannot happen in a criminal proceeding.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: You have submitted a brief. On page 3 of the brief submitted by the Deputy-Minister to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I see:

Several objections were raised...

[English]

Mr. Jessop: I'm sorry, I don't know what page 3 you're talking about. What tab is it?

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: The pages are not all numbered.

.1635

[English]

Mr. Newark: I got it.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Look at the bottom.

In the brief, the Deputy Minister mentions several reservations she raised with the Minister. Have you examined these objections? Do you feel that they are all justified? How would you evaluated these objections?

[English]

Mr. Newark: If you turn to the front of that same note you were looking at, I think there's a letter from me back to Mr. Marchi. It went through some of the objections that were raised to the same points you're talking about. Those have been the subject of our discussions with departmental officials over the past six months as well, and indeed specifically and personally with Mr. Rock, as to whether or not those concerns were such as to stop the bill from going ahead. I can tell you that as a result of my personal discussions with Mr. Rock, he did not feel those were objections such as to merit the bill not going ahead.

The issues canvassed in there, sir, are the ones we've been talking about here as having prompted some of the amendments I believe you're going to see from some of the members across the way. We feel nothing within that memo in any way compromises either the validity or the necessity of the bill. We are sufficiently confident of it that we included it for everybody to see. But the answers to it are included in the material in the brief.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Concerning the removal of the members of the family of the foreign offender, you said earlier that subclause 20.1(5) proposed in the bill clearly states:

(5) The order may provide for the removal from Canada to the foreign state of members of the family of the foreign offender...

So it is not the individual's choice. The tribunal will have this power. That disgusts me, as someone with legal training, as is the case for anyone else with legal training, that we would penalize not only the person who has committed the offence but also his or her spouse and their children. How could you enforce that provision?

[English]

Mr. Newark: Actually, sir, if you're looking at that note, if I can get you to turn the page in front of the back, you will see the letter on March 25 to Mr. Marchi in response to the department concerns about that. It's under item 9, on possible removal of families on deportation orders. It's on page 3 of that note. It's in tab B; the letter right after the bill. I quote:

We did not make this suggestion. When we collectively put in this matter and sent it to the draftsmen, it came back with this clause, with the advice that this was already in the bill, sir. It's not our suggestion.

I believe Mr. Marrocco, who is far more familiar with this bill than I am, can add to that.

Mr. Marrocco: The only point I want to add is that the clause makes reference to section 33 of the Immigration Act. That section has been in the Immigration Act as long as I've been practising and it has always given adjudicators the power you're referring to with respect to family members in the situations described in the act. That means it has been there for 25 years.

So that power to make an order with respect to dependent family members is not something that is being introduced into the legislation by this bill. It has always been in the Immigration Act. Section 33, which is referred to in the subsection you referred to, speaks to that same power.

.1640

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: Why did you put it here?

Mr. Newark: The point, sir, is that we didn't. When we had originally put the material together.... It goes to the draftsmen.

There are a few other things in here that we hadn't included, such as the three-year delay afterwards for putting things in. I think you're going to see an amendment about that. But the draftsmen you have here decided to add a few things on their own.

I had to look. My understanding of the bill apparently was the same as yours. I didn't know what it really said. I had to find the bill, which said it was already in there. As Mr. Marrocco said, it has been in there for 25 years.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you. I have one question and then a comment. There are three parts of this that I'm most interested in. These aren't necessarily in order of priority. First is the cost efficiencies that will come about by reason of placing the deportation decision with the conviction and sentencing decision. The two other areas are charter compliance and immigration fairness, and they've been addressed here in the questioning.

About the cost issue, can I assume no one has made any effort to conjure up what the savings might be, what the efficiencies might be? I assume you wouldn't have the ability to do it. Although you have a lot of experience, Mr. Marrocco, you probably don't count the dollars. I suppose we may have to ask the department if they could make a guestimate, but would any of you care to comment on the taxpayer cost savings from combining the two procedures?

Mr. Newark: I would recommend you take a look. No, I don't have the ability to get that information. I have suggested it a couple of times.

I can maybe offer some suggestions on what to look at. I think you should look at the budget for the Department of Justice on its immigration expenditures. I think you should look at the budget breakdown for the Federal Court on cases it currently hears under this. That may be included in Department of Justice estimates. I think it is, but I'm not sure about that. You want to look then at the immigration department itself and what its expenditures are in relation to the current system, which would be eliminated.

On the other side of the ledger, what you would then need to do - and this will be difficult, because it's a matter of objectives - is to try to calculate what additional time will be required as a result of this and try to get a grid, in effect, of what that should be. That seems to me what should be the basis of the negotiations between provincial and federal authorities that we would have hoped would have taken place by now but haven't.

Mr. Jessop: I think there is a bit of a public cost here, and it couldn't be measured. We view this as being more efficient, on the basis that these people are not going to disappear somewhere while their case is being decided by Immigration Canada. This process, at least in the first step, would have been dealt with.

You can ask the police officers, including myself, who have to deal with these sorts of things. These people, if they know something is going to happen to them, make it very difficult for us to find them, and if they are difficult for us to find, the likelihood is they are not working and the likelihood is they will commit further offences. So the public cost is probably immeasurable.

Mr. Newark: I should add one other thing that's in the briefing book. It's as a result of a request for information that we did pick up. It's at tab A. It's a letter dated August 30, 1995. It's from then Commissioner of Correctional Services of Canada John Edwards, in response to a question about the number of foreign offenders who were under the jurisdiction of the Correctional Service of Canada. The estimate for that year was that Canadians were spending about $50 million for the year in housing foreign offenders either in custody or on conditional release. We know that number is about 48% of the total offender population in.... About 52% is provincial. You would have to take some account of that, although again, we're going to have to negotiate some agreements with foreign jurisdictions.

Those are the kinds of things you should be looking at.

Mr. Derek Lee: Can I assume, then, that some costs would also be involved under the current system in moving the incarcerated offender to an adjudication under the deportation act? You have the convicted person at work at Warkworth or Millhaven. Either you have to move an immigration adjudicator to the convict or you have to move the convict to the immigration adjudicator, for a hearing on whether or not there would be a deportation. All of that could be avoided if the proposed bill were put in place. Is that a fair assessment?

.1645

Mr. Newark: I would think so. Those numbers would then be in the Immigration estimates that I was talking about. The three major estimates will be Justice, Immigration, and the Solicitor General.

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chair, we should all keep our eye on the clock because we have about 13 minutes before the Speaker calls us for a vote.

Mr. Peric has a very interesting bill, and if the committee doesn't take a decision today, there's a risk that the bill could be proceduralized into the black hole as we move towards a likely election. I don't wish to pre-empt further answers from the witnesses, but I thought that before the bells ring we should deal with what the committee would want to do with this piece of legislation after we adjourn today.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): I appreciate that, Mr. Lee. There is one other question from Mrs. Barnes. I also have a question that I would like to ask, and I hope you'll indulge me. I'm not the regular chair. We can certainly take a look at that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Chair, I would reinforce that by turning that into a motion.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Perhaps we should finish the questioning.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you for your testimony here today. I am a substitute member on this committee, but I am a lawyer and I also worked as an immigration officer, so I have a great appreciation for all of the problems that happen in the various court systems and in the immigration system itself.

One of the things I would be concerned about is that whether you call it a system or a bureaucracy, we have people now who are trained to handle the immigration process, who are quite knowledgeable about all the countries in the world - who will accept and who will not accept - and we have a group of lawyers and counsel who are prepared and who appear before these boards.

I have a concern about the training that would be required in the judicial system if this were implemented. I don't think, Mr. Newark, that in your estimates you included that. But from sitting in courtrooms in the past I see the situation where it's not likely to happen over and over again, and the whole judiciary across Canada would have to be trained.

Right now we have the immigration system where the whole process is devoted to whether or not to deport, and that amount of time is going to be added onto the courtroom scenario. Presumably, in some of the larger cities or by international airports you will be able to have more and more of this going to some of the courtrooms, but across Canada we're going to have to deal with it.

I haven't seen, and listening today I haven't heard, any estimation. You're saying that we don't have any evidence before us about Justice preparation on this bill. I presume that the witnesses from Immigration have not appeared on the bill. I know that an able counsel will be able to present to any judge, who will hear fairly and deal with this. But I think there will be a significant time cost in our courtrooms if we duplicate the system, and instead of seeing this as a savings, an efficiency, I just think we're taking some people who are not currently trained, keeping the existing system with all the trained people, and then duplicating it at one level.

My reading of the bill - and please correct me if I'm wrong, because you're much more aware of the intricacies of it - is that this suspends any appeal process in the other system, which is not what I thought I heard today, so I need some clarification. I'm certainly not ready to go clause by clause on it, because I think in fairness you have to have that information in order to understand.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): Do you have a question, Mrs. Barnes?

.1650

Ms Sue Barnes: I'm just outlining it.

I would like specifically to ask something of Mr. Marrocco. In the current Immigration Act, is there the 16-year-old variation that's also in this bill?

Mr. Marrocco: I'm sorry. In what?

Ms Sue Barnes: This bill doesn't address and excludes anybody under 16, if you look at the summary and then in the provisions. Under the Immigration Act, are there comparable sections right now?

Mr. Marrocco: I'm not aware of sections in the current act that are comparable to the clauses in this bill. I thought this clause was doing rather something on a principle, which was to try to deal with...people who were properly products of our society would be dealt with by us and people who were not products of our society we wouldn't take the same responsibility for. It seemed to me that's what that clause was trying to address.

Certainly there have been instances where people who have been here for a long time, since they were babies, were being returned to countries that quite frankly they obviously weren't from any more, because they had neglected to take out citizenship. I don't view that as good for us, bad for the other side. That just seems to me to be irresponsible. If you're here as a baby, you're a product of our society, and it's our problem.

Ms Sue Barnes: My point, though, is that earlier you made a statement that this clause or this dealing with family dependencies had been there in the act for 25 years, and to my best knowledge it has not - not in the same way as it is here.

Mr. Marrocco: I was referring to the subsection Mr. Nunez referred to, which dealt with the removal of dependent family members. I know from my own experiences, and I'm sure you must know, that adjudicators made orders not only removing the offending person but the offending person's dependants. They have been doing that for as long as I've been practising. I'm sure if you were an immigration officer you had the same experience.

Ms Sue Barnes: Only during summer. They didn't give me those cases. I was a helper.

Mr. Marrocco: But that wasn't new.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): We have just five minutes. I'll put my question on the record. You don't have to answer it now, but over time I would really like to know what kind of discussions you've had with the provincial departments of justice, what kind of support you've developed among our multicultural communities and those who deliver these kinds of programs. I think it would be most helpful to have their good, solid advice on what you are suggesting here.

I'll just leave that with you. I would be interested to know what kinds of discussions you've had.

Committee, we have very little time. We need to have some idea of how we would like to proceed.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Chair, I would prefer to formalize this in the way of a motion.

Ms Sue Barnes: Do you want to release the witnesses?

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): I'm sorry.

Mr. Newark: I think we've done our business. Now you have to do yours.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): You certainly have provided us with some good, solid advice. Thank you for that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I think we have dealt with this bill for a sufficiently long period. Certainly it has been in committee for well over a year now. I know there's a high degree of angst among many members, backbenchers, that when the bill does come forward it takes so long to be treated. I understand there's an interest here by the department to review this matter. They would like to appear as witnesses. I'm led to the understanding that April 15 would be the next day. I move that after that date, after we see the witnesses, we immediately proceed to clause-by-clause on Mr. Peric's bill, and that it be done on the same day.

Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): I second the motion.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Judy Bethel): I think it's going to take longer than that. It's going to be a three-month debate. It would be much preferable, I think, if we should discuss it before we put a motion, so we don't end up debating a motion but instead we come to some kind of consensus. From what I've heard, there seems to be general agreement that we do want to proceed, that we do need to hear from others, and that perhaps we should meet on April 15, which is our next date. We should invite the.... I'm not saying it as a motion. I'm just suggesting we hear from the department at that time.

.1655

Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): I have a point of order. I haven't been a committee member. Why hasn't the department been in before this time? It has been some time. Why are they coming in at such a late date? Are they coming in to torpedo the bill? I don't understand all the politics of this committee, but it seems rather strange that they come in at the last minute, when they should have been in at the front end of the bill. Why are we giving them special consideration?

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Perhaps we should get on to some resolution.

Mr. Ray Speaker: Yes, but just so I can understand it better, so I will know how to vote on this....

Ms Maria Minna: I don't have a problem discussing the consensus or dealing with the motion, because I think it's going in the same direction either way. When I came in as parliamentary secretary we already had a goodly number of things the committee was dealing with, the Canada-U.S. agreement with the settlement board and other things, but at this point there's a bill with a lot of amendments.

We've heard from one set of witnesses. I think it's fair.... Even one of the witnesses mentioned that it affects three departments: Immigration, Solicitor General, and Justice. It seems to me since they have asked to appear, as long as we set specific dates we're not delaying or wasting time if we do that. If I recall correctly, at a previous meeting Mr. Nunez asked for the CCR to appear. As long as we limit it and we have decided on the dates to meet....

I have no problem with setting dates. I think we need to do that, and let's get on with that. I have no problem with doing that. I think it's important to have them appear.

Mr. Janko Peric: Madam Chair, just for your information, since I introduced the bill two years ago....

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Mr. Peric, we have so little time. We don't need a history. I guess what I was asking is whether that is agreeable to you.

Mr. Janko Peric: Yes. But let me have a minute to explain.

I asked the immigration committee numerous times to be able to appear before the committee. For weeks and weeks the committee didn't sit, because the former chair was upset. She was away. Then I asked our whip, if the chair is not present, what is going on with the vice-chair? Why do we have a vice-chair? Why can't the vice-chair chair the meeting? He said the vice-chair should chair the meeting. So suddenly they called me.

I don't buy this excuse that the committee didn't have time to hear witnesses before; witnesses from one side or the other side. After I put pressure on three ministers to sit down with them and go over the bill, I did this three times with the department, and according to their concerns we came up with amendments.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Mr. Peric, I think we all appreciate the intent of the bill, and we certainly appreciate the work you've done. I know you've been very thorough in your meetings with the department. This committee sets -

Mr. Janko Peric: It's not functioning properly.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): - its priorities as we see them. The thing is, I think you're aware that we are willing on April 15.

Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez: I think we should study the bill. Today we have heard one side of the issue; these witnesses are all in favour of the bill. How can we move on to clause-by-clause consideration right away without having heard the flip side? Would it not be normal to proceed that way? We have to hear no only from the police, but also the CCR and the ethnic groups that will be affected by this bill, and the departments involved: the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General. Only then we can move to clause-by-clause consideration.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I take it, Madam Chair, it's agreed that this committee will continue with the consideration of Mr. Peric's bill on April 15, with appropriate witnesses to be invited by the chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Absolutely.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Madam Chair, I think my motion was more specific than that. It said after the department there would be no further witnesses, and that is the motion that stands. I wish to hold a vote on that.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I have a point of order. Do you not have a steering committee in this committee? Why don't you use your steering committee?

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): The point that has been made here, clearly, is that we want to continue, so let's determine how we can do that.

.1700

Mr. McTeague has put his motion on the floor.

Ms Maria Minna: Can I make an amendment to that motion? The motion is fine. I just want to add something. Since everyone here, even the witnesses, has said that it affects Justice and the Solicitor General's department, could we at least have those and one witness from the CCR?Mr. Nunez made that recommendation about three months ago. That's all; nothing more. I'm only suggesting an amendment.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): I'm going to ask the clerk to read the motion by Mr. McTeague.

The Clerk of the Committee: If I understood Mr. McTeague correctly, it reads:

We do have an amendment on the floor as well. The amendment would change it to:

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Is there any further debate?

Mr. Nunez: We adopted a procedure. Somebody has to submit a proposal 48 hours before. Do you have this?

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): Yes, we have that here:

Mr. Nunez: I don't agree.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Bethel): I'll rule on the rule.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;