Evidence of meeting #56 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-43.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alex Neve  Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International
Tom Stamatakis  President, Canadian Police Association
James Bissett  Board of Directors , Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual
Sharon Rosenfeldt  President, Victims of Violence

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 56, Wednesday, October 31, 2012. This meeting is televised. The orders of the day are, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. We are late because of votes. We're going to divide up the time between the two groups. We have two guests.

From Amnesty International, we have Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, and I assume Anna Shea is with you.

We have by video conference from Regina, Saskatchewan the president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis.

Mr. Neve, you're first.

3:55 p.m.

Alex Neve Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here with you this afternoon and to have this opportunity to share Amnesty International's concerns and recommendations with respect to Bill C-43.

Amnesty, for well over 25 years now, has been actively commenting upon and making representations to Parliament regularly with respect to reforms to Canada's immigration and refugee laws. Our focus, of course, has always been to ensure that those laws conform with Canada's international human rights obligations, be that with respect to refugee protection, the ban on torture, the rights of children, equality and non-discrimination, fair trials and due process, and other fundamental rights that are enshrined in international law.

We certainly recognize there are always challenges and tensions that arise in ensuring human rights are fully protected in law, in policy, and in practice when it comes to immigration and refugee matters, be it the tension between speed and efficiency versus fairness and justice, or as arises with Bill C-43, by responding to concerns about criminality and security, but doing so in full compliance with important human rights norms.

Amnesty International is of course a human rights watchdog. We're not an organization with a particular mandate with regard to immigration or refugee policy or law enforcement and criminal justice. Our role is to remind governments, including the Canadian government, of those binding human rights obligations and the absolutely essential need to ensure they are upheld.

Amnesty International certainly accepts that it is not only permissible but often essential for the Canadian government to use immigration law to exclude and remove from Canada individuals who pose threats to the country's public security or national security, including when there are concerns about serious criminality, terrorism, and related threats.

Today I would like to share with you our concern that the approach to this that we see reflected in Bill C-43, some of which builds on or adds to provisions that are already part of Canadian immigration law, raises a number of real and pressing human rights concerns in three principal areas: accountability, protection, and access to justice. Let me turn briefly to each.

With respect, first, to accountability, Amnesty International has frequently, for well over a decade now, raised concern that when Canada is faced with the attempted entry or the presence of an individual in Canada against whom there are credible allegations of potential responsibility for serious crimes under international law, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, terrorism, overwhelmingly, immigration remedies such as denial of entry or deportation are used to deal with the case.

The end result very often, therefore, is the serious human rights accusations against the individual are not dealt with in a way that will ensure justice, namely, that the person would be perhaps turned over to an appropriate international tribunal, extradited to face justice in another country, or investigated and prosecuted within Canada. That runs counter to numerous international obligations that require Canada to ensure that such individuals do in fact face justice, including under the UN convention against torture and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

We are concerned that the provisions in Bill C-43, be that clause 8 significantly broadening ministerial discretion to keep people out of Canada, or the restrictions of humanitarian and ministerial relief and appeal rights in clauses 9, 10, 18, and 24, will serve only to increase dramatically the propensity for immigration remedies to dominate. If it is even easier and faster to deport, the chances of a case being properly considered from an international criminal law perspective will be that much less.

There is nothing in Canadian law at this time that operationalizes and formalizes the legal obligation to pursue extradition and prosecution over such possibilities as barred entry and deportation. We strongly believe it is time to do so. It is too important to be left to policy and budgetary decisions. Our brief, which we'll be providing to the committee after the hearing—it's not yet available in French—proposes an addition to the bill establishing a clear obligation to pursue extradition or prosecution in appropriate cases, in compliance with international legal requirements.

Let me turn to our concerns about protection. Bill C-43 restricts or removes a number of appeal and relief mechanisms which, at present, serve as a final opportunity or last resort to address concerns about human rights violations that may be associated with an individual's removal from Canada. These may be concerns that the individual will experience torture or other serious human rights violations in the country to which he or she is being deported. They may be concerns about the best interests of children left behind or about the disruption and separation of families that will arise because of the deportation.

All of these are fundamental human rights obligations, not just policy aspirations or social matters. These are human rights obligations found in such important international treaties as the refugee convention, the convention against torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all of which are binding on Canada.

Canadian court decisions have affirmed that Canada must take account of these international obligations in its immigration laws and practices. Restricting or taking away these appeal and relief options significantly increases the likelihood that these sorts of concerns will not be addressed.

The importance of keeping open these appeal and other relief avenues is all the more important when we consider the wide sweep of these exclusionary provisions. The elimination of humanitarian relief, in clauses 9 and 10, for terrorism, violating human rights, or organized crime may well apply to individuals who have never even been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, and may extend to individuals who do not themselves pose a danger or security threat.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, in some of its past research, has highlighted ways in which these kinds of provisions have impacted on past members of the African National Congress and on individuals who are members of groups that opposed repressive governments, such as the Gadhafi regime in Libya and the Pinochet administration in Chile.

The appeal right restrictions in clause 24 extend to permanent residents who have been sentenced to six or more months in prison in Canada or who have been convicted of an act outside Canada that could be punishable within Canada by a maximum term of at least 10 years. It is a very low threshold. As such, this extends to such crimes in Canada as growing as few as six marijuana plants for trafficking, making a recording in a movie theatre, or injuring cattle. When considering crimes committed abroad, it, of course, gives rise to concerns about unfair and politically motivated charges and trials, the use of torture, and other serious shortcomings that are endemic in the justice systems of many countries.

An appeal hearing is the avenue that can consider all of these dimensions: the nature of the accusations; the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the crime; the unfairness of foreign convictions; and human rights violations that will occur if the deportation goes ahead.

Amnesty International's strong recommendation, therefore, is that clauses 9, 10, 18, and 24, which propose restrictions on and removal of humanitarian relief, ministerial relief, and appeal rights, all be withdrawn. They are an indispensable means of ensuring that human rights are protected, but they also ensure and leave open the possibility that serious concerns about criminality and security will be addressed.

The last point I would briefly like to raise is the issue of access to justice. Removing these avenues for appealing or seeking relief from a deportation order are essential in that they are a means of protecting individuals from human rights violations, as I've just laid out. What they represent, which is access to justice, is also a human rights concern in and of itself. International law has long recognized that deportation is no casual matter. While it may not be tantamount to criminal sentencing, it certainly carries a similarly strong message of punishment and societal disapproval, with tremendous consequences for the individual.

As such, internationally and nationally, it has long been recognized that there must be sound procedural protections associated with deportation. The UN Human Rights Committee, which is the expert UN body charged with overseeing and implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has stressed that this means that anyone facing deportation should have an opportunity to appeal the deportation order, unless there are “compelling reasons” of national security.

The wide sweep of the clause's restricting relief and appeal opportunities in Bill C-43 go far beyond compelling reasons of national security.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Could you wind up, sir. Although we're having technical difficulties, you may be able to go on forever.

4:05 p.m.

Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International

Alex Neve

I only have one sentence left.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Then please do.

4:05 p.m.

Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International

Alex Neve

These provisions should therefore be withdrawn for this additional reason, the fact that they violate important internationally recognized rights related to access to justice.

Those are my comments.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Stamatakis, can you hear us?

4:05 p.m.

Tom Stamatakis President, Canadian Police Association

Good afternoon. Yes I can.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Excellent. I was worried.

You have up to 10 minutes, sir, to make your presentation. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us.

4:05 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

It's my pleasure to appear before you today in support of Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. I'm appearing today in my role as president of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 50,000 front line law enforcement personnel from across Canada, serving in over 160 different police services. Our members include police officers from federal, provincial, municipal, and first nations police organizations.

While I understand that Bill C-43 has a number of wide-ranging provisions, I'd like to focus my brief opening statements on the sections of the legislation that deal specifically with the streamlined process for removing serious offenders from the country and why this is an obvious priority for our organization.

On the night of June 16, 1994, Toronto Police Service Constables Todd Baylis and Mike Leone were on foot patrol in a public housing complex on Trethewey Drive in west Toronto when they encountered Jamaican-born Clinton Gayle. Gayle was a 26-year-old veteran drug trafficker who had with him a fully loaded nine millimetre handgun and pockets filled with bags of crack cocaine. Clinton Gayle struck Constable Baylis and attempted to flee the scene. He was caught by the two young Toronto officers and a gun fight erupted. Tragically, Constable Baylis was shot in the head and killed in the line of duty, after only four years' service, leaving behind family, friends, and colleagues who continue to honour his sacrifice.

Unfortunately, this is one of the very real dangers that face our police personnel every day. What makes this case so particularly tragic and why I am here before you today is that this case was entirely preventable, if only the provisions within Bill C-43 were in effect then.

Clinton Gayle had been under a deportation order because of a number of criminal convictions he had on his record for various serious issues such as drugs, weapons, and assault. Despite these convictions, Clinton Gayle had used his time in prison to appeal his deportation order. At the conclusion of his sentence in 1992, he was allowed to go free by an immigration department official after posting a meagre $2,000 bail.

We now know that between 1990 and 1996, the government had made a number of efforts to deport Mr. Gayle, efforts that ultimately proved to be unsuccessful, and that red tape and abuse of the system by a known criminal is what led to the tragic murder of one of our colleagues, Constable Baylis, as well as serious injuries to his partner, Constable Leone.

Let me be absolutely clear. Canada as a nation is a stronger country because of immigrants who come here to enrich our communities through a shared culture. Police services across Canada, from Vancouver where I serve as a police constable to Halifax and all points in between, count among our members a number of first and second generation immigrants who serve their adopted country with honour and pride every day, and I'm one of them.

Unfortunately, there are those that come to Canada and choose not to respect and follow our laws. In fact, I was surprised to note, in preparing for my appearance today, that since 2007, according to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, there have been an average of 900 appeals of deportation orders filed per year by serious criminals, over 4,000 in total. Surely, we can agree that our communities would be safer, and our police would be helped by streamlining this process in removing these security concerns as quickly as possible.

Under the current regime, criminals who are currently serving a sentence of less than two years are eligible to file an appeal to the immigration appeal division. The CPA entirely supports the measures contained within this bill to reduce that time to sentences of less than six months. We also support the new measures that would make it more difficult for criminals,who have been sentenced outside of Canada to access the immigration appeal division.

These are common sense solutions that are necessary to help our members protect their communities. The problem has become that the criminals we catch are becoming increasingly aware of ways to game the system, abusing processes that were put in place with the best of intentions.

Once again, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation that you extended to allow me to speak to you today regarding the tragic circumstances of Constable Baylis' death. I would be happy to try and answer any questions you might have regarding the Canadian Police Association or our support for this proposed legislation.

Thank you.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, sir, for your presentation. The committee will have some questions.

Mr. Opitz.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, Mr. Neve, Bill C-43 doesn't change Canada's commitment to remove people from the country, or to a country rather, to countries where they're going to face persecution, so I think you might be wrong to suggest that. Also, what I got out of your presentation is that you were talking mostly about the rights of criminals. I haven't heard you say anything about the rights of victims of these criminals.

Sir, what I'd like to know is, what is Amnesty's view on the right of Canadians not to be victimized by criminals, such as Mr. Stamatakis has just outlined?

4:10 p.m.

Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International

Alex Neve

Clearly, governments are not only entitled but obligated, it's absolutely essential that governments take firm action through criminal law processes, and yes, also through immigration law processes, to respond to concerns about criminality: to prevent crime, to respond to crime when it has happened, and to tend to and deal with the needs of victims of crime, absolutely. Amnesty International, in its human rights work over decades all around the world, has laid out important recommendations as to ways in which governments need to do that.

At the same time, there are other human rights issues that are at stake in these kinds of cases. Amnesty International is by no means saying that serious criminals should remain in Canada. I didn't say that in my submission now; we don't say that in our brief, and we have never suggested that.

What we have suggested and endorsed is that appeal procedures or humanitarian relief mechanisms are an important avenue to ensure that there is an independent and thorough opportunity to examine the totality of a case, to ensure that, yes, the concerns about serious criminality are understood and addressed, but also to understand, if perhaps it's a case in which the concerns about criminality aren't so serious, there may be other very countervailing serious human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

When you were a member of the IRB did you recommend the return of serious criminals?

4:10 p.m.

Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada, Amnesty International

Alex Neve

I was a member of the refugee division, not the immigration appeal division, so I was making decisions about whether or not people should be granted refugee status. I wasn't dealing with deportation affairs.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

Very well.

Mr. Stamatakis, according to the IRB, there's an average of 850 serious criminals who appeal to the IAD every year to delay their deportation. Would you say that this number is significant? How does this number concern you? Again, it was on average 850 serious criminals.

4:10 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

I think the number is significant in the context of my submission and the provisions around what defines a serious criminal. I think that in this country anybody who receives a custodial sentence of six months would have had to commit a serious crime.

As a front line officer, whether you're talking about a criminal act where innocent citizens in our country are being victimized by violence or other activities like that, or about a white-collar crime, where you have people who are losing life savings and having their entire lives destroyed, where there is a custodial sentence of a duration of six months, I think somebody has committed a serious crime, and I think 800 is too many.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

I hear what you're saying, by the way. A lot of my personal friends are police officers, and I've been on ride-alongs with them. I know what they face, especially in some of the tougher areas.

Now, sir, I was shocked to learn that for several years criminals who have been inadmissible on the most serious grounds, and that includes people such as war criminals, human rights violators, and those in organized crime, have been able to delay their deportation from Canada by simply applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This is in fact contrary to Canada's no safe haven policy.

I have a three-part question, but I'll do them one at a time.

Do you agree or disagree with the provision in Bill C-43 to no longer allow these most serious criminals to use humanitarian and compassionate grounds to delay their deportation? We'll start with that one. Would you like me to repeat that?

4:15 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

Are you directing the question to me?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

Yes, sir.

4:15 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

Yes, I would agree. Obviously I'm assuming there would be the appropriate regulations and processes in place to ensure we're dealing with legitimate information with respect to that, but I would agree with that statement.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

What impact do you think this has on law-abiding individuals who are applying for humanitarian and compassionate grounds in good faith and for genuine reasons? By mixing serious criminals in with the ability to apply for H and C, do you think it's going to impact and affect people who are decent, hard-working folks looking to start a new life and who are applying for the same type of program or the same provisions through H and C?

4:15 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

I am by no means an expert, but I would say that based on my experience in the criminal justice system, when you have people appealing, and consuming capacity in the system, perhaps it means that law-abiding people legitimately seeking refugee status or access to immigration to this country may have their applications delayed. The other effect that can occur is on the one hand you may be dealing with a serious criminal and then the next file comes along and it's a person who is legitimately seeking the opportunity to come to this country. It sets a bit of a tone that could perhaps negatively influence a legitimate claim.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON

I'm sure as a police officer you'll be well aware. What impact does this have on communities, for example, where victims of these war criminals reside? To a particular community, could there be intimidation? Could there be some coercion of communities because people of this type are among those communities? Have you had that experience?

4:15 p.m.

President, Canadian Police Association

Tom Stamatakis

Sure. If you have dealt with outreach from communities, when they learn, in some cases, that a convicted war criminal from another part of the world is arriving in our country and in some cases even living in that neighbourhood, it causes a lot of angst in that particular community or neighbourhood for sure.