Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It could have been someone in the midst of a drug deal, who was growing six marijuana plants with the intent of drug trafficking, and killed a constable. Drug trafficking is drug trafficking. Is that correct?

[Tom Stamatakis]

Drug trafficking is drug trafficking. We've had police officers who've been either seriously injured or killed on duty or in the line of duty by people who aren't even involved in criminal activity at the time.

The issue for me as a front line officer and what I get from my members is this. I support fair process. It's obviously an important piece of our society and what Canada stands for, but you have to balance the rights of Canadians to live in their homes and not be afraid of being victimized against the rights of people who were convicted of serious criminal offences and whom we see all the time, particularly on the criminal side, continuing to commit offences while they're appealing. I say we shouldn't use Canadians as an experiment.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Our other witness here, Mr. Neve, somehow implied that better administration might have protected Todd Baylis.

From my knowledge of the criminal justice system, someone who's caught drug trafficking serves a term, a sentence, and then is eventually released. In your opinion, would a drug dealer who is capable of killing a police officer still be capable of such a crime once they're released back into society?

[Tom Stamatakis]

Yes, very capable, and we see that occur on a regular basis. I think it's correct to say there were administrative issues with Mr. Gayle and how his deportation was processed. But I'm going to argue that the longer people have to appeal and the longer the appeal goes on, the greater the likelihood you'll see those kinds of administrative problems that allow people to fall between the cracks.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

May I ask how long I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have one minute.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Obviously, since you're with the police association, you're very familiar with statistics and crime and so forth. At the end of the day, does Canada really need another drug dealer?

[Tom Stamatakis]

No, we have enough of our own in this country. I don't think we need them to come from elsewhere.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have one last question; I'm running out of time.

Mr. Neve, you talked about protecting individuals and the safeguards. With regard to this aspect of the bill, we're talking about war criminals, terrorists, and human rights violators. I'm just wondering when protecting our own Canadian citizens and our own borders comes into play. I'm just wondering, for you, when Canada becomes more important.

[Alex Neve]

I first would like to correct the record. I didn't say anything about Mr. Gayle's case. I'm not at all familiar with the circumstances. I think that came up in some comments from one of the NDP members.

I did note that it has been clearly established that operational challenges have often explained why there have been delays in enforcing deportation orders, but I don't have any knowledge about Mr. Gayle's case.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Are you able to answer the question? When do you think Canadians become more important?

[Alex Neve]

Yes, I just wanted to correct the record.

I don't think it's about anyone becoming more important, it's about ensuring that our human rights obligations are protected. Amnesty has a very strong agenda with respect to war criminals, individuals who've committed crimes against humanity, and others. I referred to that at the beginning.

Our concern is that this overreliance on deportation as the way to deal with that does not serve justice. If we are faced with individuals who have committed those kinds of serious crimes, deportation, if anything, increases the chances that they're going to get away with it. We should be having—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do you believe that it's Canada's responsibility to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. We have to end.

Ms. Groguhé, you may go ahead for two minutes.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Neve, I don't have a lot of time, so I am going to keep it brief.

According to the government, one of the things Bill C-43 seeks to do is make it easier to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Do you think a foreign criminal's ability to access his or her rights under the charter represents an abuse? Is it possible to reconcile respect for fundamental rights and the use of accelerated deportation when it comes to criminals? And if so, how?

[Alex Neve]

Neither the Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor any of the international human rights treaties I've referred to in my presentations are, by any means, instruments that should be seen as somehow avenues of abuse. These are some of the most fundamental documents that exist within our legal system and the international legal system. All our laws should be enacted in ways to ensure that those norms will be fully protected at all times, even in difficult cases where we may have someone accused of a serious crime or security concerns. That's when those kinds of norms are the most tested, but it is not the time to shut them down.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Removing one avenue for people found inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality to potentially remain in Canada makes it more likely that these individuals will be deported. Should the government take into account the effect on receiving countries when such individuals are deported?

[Alex Neve]

No, clearly not. We need to ensure there are avenues in place, remedies, to ensure that a decision to send someone back, in violation of their rights, will be overturned and won't go ahead. That's why we need those remedies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

I'm afraid our time has expired. I apologize, Mr. Neve and Mr. Stamatakis, for the short time we had, but we had to vote.

I want to thank both of you, and your colleague, Ms. Shea, for appearing before us and helping us better understand this legislation.

We will suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are reconvening, so could I have some order, please. Could you please take your meeting outside. Thank you.

We have two guests here, and we're running a bit behind schedule. Mr. Bissett and Ms. Rosenfeldt, thank you for coming.

Mr. Bissett, who's appeared before us many times, is with the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. Good afternoon, sir.

[James Bissett, Board of Directors , Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Rosenfeldt, you're famous, so I don't know whether I've seen you before or whether I've seen you here, but you are with Victims of Violence, and I'm pleased that you're here as well.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt, President, Victims of Violence]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You each have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation.

We'll start with Ms. Rosenfeldt.

[Sharon Rosenfeldt]

You can tell my age; I was wondering where my glasses were and they're on my head.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee. I wish to thank you for inviting our organization, Victims of Violence, to present to you today.

We are here appearing in support of Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the short title, the faster removal of foreign criminals act.

I will briefly tell you about our organization. Our mission is to promote a more balanced justice system through legislative action and public awareness.

Victims of Violence was founded in 1984 to advance the rights of crime victims and enhance the safety of all law-abiding Canadians by addressing problems in Canada's criminal justice system.

Through the tireless efforts of many volunteers, most of them victims of violent crime, much progress has been made toward fulfilling our mission. Victims of Violence has worked with government for three decades to ensure that public safety and the rights of victims receive due consideration.

Victims of Violence has worked with hundreds of individual victims, helping them navigate through the bureaucracy to find justice in the criminal justice system. Our work on behalf of victims of crime sometimes overlaps into different ministries such as the case today.

The government's action to date is that they have indeed listened to victims and to law-abiding Canadians who want our laws to differentiate between the majority of offenders for whom rehabilitation is a realistic option and the repeat offenders for whom the justice and correctional system is a revolving door, which does include foreign individuals who repeatedly break our laws.

We feel that in the long run the measures in Bill C-43 won't put more foreign criminals in jail, but rather they will keep the right people in Canada. That is what crime victims have been asking for.

Is Bill C-43 the be-all and end-all to society and immigration and refugee problems? Of course not. Is this all that victims want or need? No, but it is one necessary and important part of the equation.

Building an effective immigration system is a key component of any and all safe communities in Canada. Therefore, power must be exercised usefully, that is, to promote the greatest well-being of its citizens.

We feel that reasonable laws enhance the good of all and they serve the interest of all, while unreasonable laws are biased and they give all possible power of rights to a small part of the population while leaving all the misery and suffering to the other persons. Today we call those other persons victims as it relates to foreign individuals committing serious crimes in Canada.

Traditional justice systems invariably have not been ideal from the point of view of the victim; however, modern society has sought to provide extended protection to the victim through criminal laws and systems of social security.

We see Bill C-43 as a long-awaited piece of legislation which in part is designed to facilitate and make easier the entry into Canada for legitimate visitors and immigrants, while giving government stronger legal tools to not admit into Canada those who may pose a risk to our country. Most important to crime victims is the removal from Canada of those who have committed serious crimes and have been convicted of such crimes by our fair judicial system.

We agree with Minister Kenney, who states that the vast majority of new Canadians will never commit a serious crime and they, therefore, have no tolerance for the small minority who do, who have lost the privilege to stay in Canada.

We also agree with Minister Kenney on due process and natural justice in the rule of law. We also agree with Minister Kenney that even serious convicted foreign criminals should get their day in court and that they should benefit from due process.

He agrees, as we do, that they should not be deported without consideration by the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, Minister Kenney does not agree that they should get endless years in court and be able to abuse our fair process.

Victims of Violence is in agreement with the minister. With this bill, an end would be put to that abuse.

We feel that this bill sets a clear agenda to act decisively, as it is the right thing to do for our country and its law-abiding citizens. It sends a message that the rules of engagement have changed in Canada, and it won't be business as usual for individuals to come to Canada and break our laws.

I wish to bring to the attention of the committee an issue that has not been addressed in any of the research that I've done in relation to Bill C-43.

I would like to ask the committee to consider the costs that crime has on victims. The costs of violent and serious crime not only consists of taxpayers' dollars but the loss of human life, loss of family, loss of law and order, and the loss of faith in the criminal justice system.

In 2008 the Department of Justice released a report which estimated the costs of crime. The report stated that the tangible costs of crime, which included police, court, corrections, health care, victims' costs, etc., were approximately $31.4 billion, while the intangible costs, which included pain and suffering, loss of life, etc., were over double that, at $68.2 billion.

If I may, I wish to seek permission from the committee to table the report. I do not have it with me, but I will ensure that the clerk will receive a copy to be distributed.

In closing, we believe that Bill C-43 provides Canada's immigration system the vehicle to address the very real and immediate needs now facing the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, and to prepare the system for possible new challenges anticipated in the future. We strongly believe that if all the amendments in Bill C-43 are supported and implemented, the safety of Canadians will be further enhanced.

All Canadians have a right to live in safe communities. Threats to that right should be addressed swiftly and effectively by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Thank you very much.