Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 31st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate on the amendment?

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Again, I just wanted to reiterate, Mr. Chair, that it's extraordinarily important. I understand what the members opposite have said and the position that you are being put in, but I think it's more important for this committee to show Parliament and all Canadians that we are not going to simply sit back, and that it is not the opinion of this committee that people who are convicted of serious crimes in this country should be able to stay in this country.

We have to send out a signal to the people, to people in my riding who are afraid of people such as the person I mentioned earlier, who was convicted of two fatal shootings, a meat cleaver attack, and the trashing of a community centre, and who the Tamil community in my riding are frightened of. They have asked me to make sure we do everything in our power to get this person out of the country.

I think it is more important that as a committee we send a message to our colleagues in Parliament and to all Canadians that we will be tough, that we will stand up for Canadians, and that we will stand up for Tamil Canadians, to make sure our streets are safe, that they themselves are safe, and that they will not be terrorized by people who have nothing but bad things to do to their businesses, their families, and so on.

With all due respect to the members opposite and to you, Mr. Chair, I think it's more important that we send that message to Parliament rather than allow a motion to stand out there that would give Canadians and the rest of Parliament an indication that this committee supports having terrorists and war criminals roam the streets.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a list, Ms. Mendes, but before that, I'm going to ask a question as chairman because I'm being asked to present a contradictory report. I think I have the right to ask the questions.

I'd like to know what the words “have serious criminality issues” mean. Also, for the words “participated in war crimes”, who decides that?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I would suggest that the courts would decide what--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The courts in Canada?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, the courts in Canada, and ultimately the IRB would also make a determination on whether somebody would be staying or going. I fully support the IRB, and I think they have the ability to make proper decisions, and I think the courts in this country--I support the courts--can decide whether someone is guilty or innocent of--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

What do the words “have serious criminality issues” mean?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It could be anything. It can be anything from somebody who attacks somebody with a meat cleaver or shoots two kids to somebody who tries to extort money from a local business person for protection services. It could be somebody who was convicted of terrible things in their home country but somehow managed to make it through.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do trust our justice system. I believe our courts know what they're there to do. If they have one Sri Lankan person, of Sri Lankan origin, who actually committed a crime and is accused and convicted of this crime, the person will be deported if he's not a Canadian citizen.

I don't see why we have to get involved in this. Who is going to determine all these nuances? I really am very uncomfortable with this. I would like our courts to have the power to do what they are meant to do, and it's not for us to direct that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

This motion doesn't suggest that.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The previous motion just told us not to deport people. We didn't say people who were criminals or not criminals. If they are criminals and if the court decides to deport them....

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Then I guess that motion wasn't very clear either, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, there's a list to speak.

I have Ms. Mendes who has the floor.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I am done. I do not support this motion. I do not believe we should be telling our courts what to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think, Chair, you hit on some of the fundamental problems with the motion. It would have served this committee well if perhaps a little more time and thought were put into the motion instead of our having to engage in trying to make something work, but we have this issue of established by whom. We assume that in terms of serious crimes it would be Canadian courts, but it's not quite clear. Mr. Calandra has said he'd be willing to consider the IRB to be the adjudicator and decision-maker in these sorts of situations, especially in the case of war crimes. You can't possibly throw a more serious charge against someone than having engaged in war crimes, and we have to be very careful how we proceed. Only the courts are resourced enough and properly resourced to establish whether or not someone has been involved in war crimes, and we trust our judiciary here in this country.

I'll use the example of Rwanda. There are accusations against numerous Rwandan Canadians that they participated in one form or another in the genocide in Rwanda. And we have moved on some of those cases, but establishing the facts is very difficult, and we shouldn't leave that to the IRB. It should be quite clear that it's Canadian courts that would have to establish this.

Finally, there is that last point. There are ample precedents in Canada that we don't necessarily deport to countries whose justice systems we don't philosophically agree with. We don't deport to a number of countries around the world because we fundamentally believe their justice systems commit or have the potential to commit grave injustices. We had the case of a businessman who had potentially engaged in serious frauds in China, and we have to be very careful that an individual such as that, deported, could well face capital punishment. That whole issue of deportation to countries that don't subscribe to...not just in terms of nuancing how many years in prison, etc., but their justice systems are fundamentally different from ours. Sometimes it's in theory, sometimes it's both in theory and practice, and sometimes it's just in practice.

I think this committee would be served well on this particular point if a little bit of time were taken to properly word this. It probably can't be worded as succinctly, but if the intent that's evident in this motion is there, I'm sure Mr. Calandra would take the time to go about this in a proper way.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra and then Mr. Calandra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I have no more to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Calandra and then Ms. Chow.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just remind the honourable members opposite that the previous motion said no one will be deported to Sri Lanka. It made no mention of criminals or people who are convicted. This motion as amended says people “who have been convicted” of serious crimes. I've taken the suggestions of the members opposite. The amended motion says “convicted”. Apparently Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, as he mentioned, supports the courts, so clearly if the courts have—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't see the word “convicted” in here.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It's in the amended motion, as amended by Mr. Dykstra.

The members opposite have mentioned that they support the courts. Clearly, if somebody has been convicted of a serious crime in Canada or has been convicted of war crimes, then they should not be allowed to stay in the country. I can't imagine how the members opposite can suggest by any rational means that somebody convicted of a serious crime in this country or convicted of a war crime should be allowed to roam the streets of Canada. It defies logic, to me, that I have to go back to my riding and tell the people in my riding who are begging me to find a way to remove this particular gentleman, who was....

Mr. Chair, criminality issues might not be a serious thing to the members opposite, but if they would pay some attention, or at least keep their noise level to a minimum, I'd be appreciative.

It defies logic, to me, that the members opposite would not support a motion that would see people convicted of the worst crimes sent back to their home, to Sri Lanka. Why should I then have to go back into my riding and explain to the Tamil business people that this type of gentleman will be allowed to stay in Canada, that he—in this instance—will not be deported back to Sri Lanka? He will be walking the streets, because the previous motion said no one, under any circumstances, will be sent back to Sri Lanka. That's what the previous motion said, Mr. Chair: no one will be convicted, or—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That's not what we said. We did not say convicted, but deported.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

—no one will be deported to Sri Lanka.