Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

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

Going back to the pieces of the bill, Mr. Ryan--and Ms. Gracey, if you want to jump in, feel free--one of the parts we haven't had a lot of discussion about or presentations on from a witness perspective, is the final part of the bill, which proposes an extension of the time to institute proceedings by way of summary conviction with respect to certain offences under the act, from six years to five years--

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

That's six months.

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

Thank you. Mr. Trudeau was correct this time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Yes, so it's six months to five years after the day on which the substance of the proceedings arose. I wonder if you could comment on that.

I mean, obviously as an organization that's been involved in this, we're extending the timeframe wherein you can actually pursue an individual or an organization that does in fact move against the law or is acting in an unethical manner. Could you just comment on the timeframe, and also on the penalties, which will become mandatory?

[John Ryan]

One of the things we've seen in CSIC is that when you start doing investigations and you start then moving into hearings and appeals, the process itself becomes extremely long. That's just the administrative process in front of the regulator. In one case, one of our investigations that's finally now coming to a tribunal decision has taken two years, so I agree that the lengthening of the timeframes.... Five years, I would say, may not be enough.

Also, quite frankly, on the criminal conviction side, if you look at the criminal prosecutions that are going on right now, they are becoming quite protracted.

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

Versus a summary...? Yes.

One of the other parts--and we talked a little bit about this in the last round of questioning--is the whole issue that you had concerns about, which was whether or not some of the framework of it might be better at Justice. The bill does authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations providing for the disclosure of information relating to ethical or professional conduct of a representative to the body responsible for governing or investigating complaints concerning that conduct.

It would seem to me that this is clearly a bridge between what you're not able to do now and what you will be able to do after the bill passes, and that in fact it doesn't need the approval or the sanction of the minister. That, in fact, will be done obviously through the Governor in Council. It gives you that direct authority versus having to ask for it anywhere else.

[John Ryan]

We agree. We're currently going through the process of applying to be an investigative body under the Privacy Act so that we can exchange information with the government about members who have done things that are unscrupulous. We can't get at them because the government can't tell us about it, so it's been wholly frustrating with respect to that.

Now, there is a provision that the head of government can release information, but that hasn't worked very well. So certainly this aspect of the bill is very good.

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

This gets into the discussion around the issue brought up by some of the previous witnesses who have come before you, and it certainly has been a question asked by the opposition. That is the issue around how the body is actually formed: whether that be a statutory direct body, or one that has itself tied to regulation but has itself obviously tied to the ministry and reporting directly to the minister.

[John Ryan]

This is an issue that has been confused by many members of the committee. Statutory self-regulation is really an act that empowers the body to have certain powers, competencies, etc., similar to the MARA, to the Migration Act. It empowers. There's a whole section inside the act that creates a statutory self-regulatory body.

What we have in Canada is a self-regulation, part II, Canada Corporations Act. I saw that the committee had recommended this in the last thing. Well, that's already what you have in CSIC. The new body, whether it be CSIC under the current process, or a new body, will still be a part II Canada corporation, so you're still talking about regulation by inference. There is a body of law with the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Supreme Court that now supports the government's ability to do that in terms of regulation by inference, in terms of delegating the authority to a private corporation.

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

Well, I--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. We've run out of time, Mr. Dykstra.

Ms. Gracey, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Janzen, thank you very much for your presentations and for answering the questions. We appreciate it your coming here today.

This meeting is adjourned.