Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Opitz.

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much. Thank you to both of you for your presentations.

At the last meeting on Monday, the committee heard testimony from Mr. Andrew Brouwer. He's a representative from the Canadian Council for Refugees. Mr. Brouwer expressed his deep concern over many aspects of Bill C-43, including provisions that would leave people considered inadmissible on grounds of security and human or international rights violations without a mechanism to establish their innocence or to have their compelling personal circumstances considered on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

This question is for you, Mr. Neve. Could you please share with the committee how you think the proposed amendments to eliminate access to an appeal process for people considered inadmissible on grounds of security or human rights violations could impact refugees and permanent and temporary residents in Canada?

[Alex Neve]

Often there is a tendency to view appeal provisions and humanitarian relief provisions as something that delays the inevitability of a deportation, and therefore it's slowing down a necessary end result. It's also important, though, to recognize that these truly are safeguards to ensure that the proper decision about deportation is being made, be it the appeal before the immigration appeal division or be it the humanitarian relief possibilities that are open through other avenues.

It is an opportunity, often the only opportunity, to ensure that very compelling personal circumstances, many of which often involve binding international human rights obligations, concerns about being returned to torture, concerns about minor children being separated from parents, and concerns about failure to properly protect the best interests of children, and other kinds of issues get taken into account and are properly assessed. Therefore the right decision about removal, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, is reached.

By taking away those appeal or humanitarian relief mechanisms and the ability to do that, those human rights safeguards are no longer present in the Canadian system. That will have a very serious detrimental impact on large numbers of permanent residents and other individuals who are not citizens, and their families as well. I think we have to recognize the impact and consequences of these removal appeal and relief mechanisms goes far wider.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-43 also stipulates that permanent residents who commit a crime for which they are sentenced to six months' imprisonment or longer lose the right to appeal. This is a right they have right now, the right to appeal their removal order to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

We have heard testimony from various groups in this committee that various circumstances warrant a stay of a removal order, even for residents convicted of crimes. These circumstances include when the resident has lived most of their lives in Canada and has weak or no connections to their country of birth; the resident is suffering from mental health problems that have contributed to their committing the crime; and the resident's family's circumstances in Canada warrant a conditional stay of the removal order based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

How does your organization view the elimination of appealing a removal order for residents sentenced to imprisonment for six months or longer? Should the law give all permanent residents, including those convicted of crimes, the right of appeal to the IRB?

[Alex Neve]

In our view, the answer to that is yes. The hallmark of a strong justice system is access to justice, and appeal procedures are an essential safeguard. This is not about keeping serious criminals in Canada. It's not about looking for ways to delay their deportation. It's about ensuring that the right decision gets made, taking into account all of the circumstances that you've highlighted and perhaps others.

I think it's very notable, the first point you've raised, in particular the issue of individuals who have lived not only the majority but sometimes almost the entirety of their lives in Canada and for a whole variety of reasons have never obtained citizenship, have run afoul of the law and do have a criminal record. To assume that it is somehow the country of origin's fault, and it isn't a matter that Canada itself as a nation bears responsibility, is very problematic. To take away appeal provisions in those circumstances is very troubling.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

There are some concerns when we're hearing about operational errors, as well as problems with the administration of the current laws, that can actually undermine the safety and security of Canadians. When the minister came last week, he mentioned operational errors that contributed to the delays in removing Clinton Gayle, who then went on to kill Constable Todd Baylis. What he did not mention was the serious nature of those errors, which included the loss of Gayle's files and, when officials found him and tried to expedite his removal, they did not provide the requisite travel documents but, rather, told him to visit the consulate in Toronto and get them for himself. Of course, he then went underground.

Would you agree that better administration of our current immigration laws would help protect Canadians and help prevent future crimes? Do you have any recommendations on this point?

[Alex Neve]

I think that's a very important point, not only in this area but in all sorts of areas. There is an easy temptation to assume that toughening up laws is the panacea that will solve whatever concerns we have. Often, it's actually not about the legal provisions. The law is already there, and there are all sorts of legal provisions, of course, that make it very clear that serious criminals should be removed from Canada.

It comes down to the operationalization. It's what resources are provided, and what ongoing evaluation and assessment of systems are being made to ensure that operational problems are identified when they happen, and remedied.

There is important work that has been done over the years, including auditors general reports, and other ways in which light has been shed on some of those operational challenges.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Stamatakis, I have a question in regard to a comment you made and a comment that was made by the Minister of Immigration when he was before the committee about there being 850-plus criminals seeking appeals annually.

Part of the concern I have is about the wording and the spinning that's going on in this bill. What happened to Constable Baylis is very tragic. I think all Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be very upset with what took place, and our hearts and prayers go out to the family of the constable.

Having said that, reference to 850 serious criminals is made all the time. Have you received a breakdown at all as to the makeup of those 850 criminals? What kind of serious criminals are we really talking about?

[Tom Stamatakis]

No, I haven't, and I would be interested to see it. Depending on what definition of a serious criminal is being used, in my comments, I'm using the definition of a serious criminal in the proposed legislation and also the pre-existing one.

If we're talking about people who have been imprisoned or sentenced to custodial sentences of six months or even two years, that's where the figure of 850 becomes a huge issue. We can talk about crime in communities across this country and clearly demonstrate that it's a very small percentage of people who commit those crimes. But if we're talking about people who have received custodial sentences, even of six months' duration, in my experience as a front line police officer, that means these are people who are committing hundreds of offences.

The figure of 850 could actually mean a significant amount of offences, if we're talking about serious criminals. That's why I say, from a front line policing perspective, it's a big number. We can see in even large cities very small numbers of people engaged in chronic criminal activity who are victimizing Canadians over and over again, because they're committing crime after crime. When they go before a judge, charged with sometimes more than 100 break and enters, for example, there is a conviction on a few of them, some negotiation in terms of sentencing, and often it's not even a custodial sentence. It might be some term of probation or conditional sentencing, so that—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'll stop you there because I have only a couple more minutes.

Given the nature and the number of serious crimes the minister has reported on, do you think there should be an obligation for the minister to provide that background information as to the types of serious crimes, whether it's to this committee or even to someone such as you, given the position you have? Would there be benefit in terms of knowing what those 850 crimes are like, or even possibly if there's a concentration in certain areas? Is there a benefit for the minister to make that known to the committee?

[Tom Stamatakis]

I'm not sure I'm in a position to comment on that. I think the more information you have, including on the kinds of crimes that are being committed by these individuals, it would better inform not only the committee but also everyone else who's been discussing Bill C-43 or other issues related to immigration policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Neve, I want to quickly go to you. Family members who are not allowed to acquire visitors visas from abroad because their spouses, for example, might be involved in a criminal organization are being penalized, even though they could be wonderful, outstanding individuals in and of themselves. Do you have any thoughts in terms of how this bill is going to make that into a reality, if it passes?

[Alex Neve]

That is one of the many concerns that has been flagged, as people have tried to imagine the ways in which this isn't just theoretical but would actually play out in real lives, in real ways, for people. That particular example, which I've heard referred to previously, is a very good one. It underscores why the importance of having some sort of discretionary relief open in a circumstance like that is an admirable and necessary goal. It ensures that we're not seeing injustices or unfair decisions that are made in cases like that, with no ability to rectify it or remedy it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all of our guests.

Mr. Stamatakis, thank you very much for coming today. I'm very glad that you touched on Constable Todd Baylis. My father was a police officer, who now is long retired, so that particular incident hit home with me. I grew up in Toronto. As much as I know how it impacted me and my family, I can't imagine what it did to his family and his fiancée. I really thank you for bringing that to the attention of this committee.

You mentioned that Mr. Gayle had been a drug dealer. Todd Baylis was unfortunately in the process of disrupting a crack cocaine drug deal. I want to thank you very much for bringing that information to the committee.

I am going to come back with a question in a moment, but I want to direct my question, first of all, to Mr. Neve.

In your opening remarks you mentioned that you were against this bill. One of the reasons was that it could mean deportation of someone for a crime as low as having six marijuana plants. What you left off is that it's not just the possession; it's with the intent of trafficking drugs.

My question for your is this: Do you believe drug trafficking is a serious offence?

[Alex Neve]

Certainly we do. I actually did have “for the purposes of trafficking” in my notes. If I didn't mention it when I actually spoke, it was an oversight. It certainly was in my notes.

Yes, we do understand that drug trafficking is a serious offence. What we were focusing on there was not so much the drug trafficking piece but rather, in that instance, the very low threshold of having six marijuana plants.

That's not to suggest—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

For the intent of drug trafficking.

[Alex Neve]

Yes, but I just want to clarify. We're not necessarily saying that means that whoever was convicted of that offence shouldn't be deported, but that having relief mechanisms and an appeal process to ensure that the circumstances are well looked at is essential.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's a good point. I just wanted to point out that the person who is prosecuted for drug trafficking, whether it be crack cocaine or marijuana possession, and so forth, for the purposes of drug trafficking, actually has an appeals process through the judicial system. People have the right to appeal a conviction if they feel like they were falsely accused or something went wrong in the court.

You're aware that there is a judicial appeals process. Correct?

[Alex Neve]

I'm very aware. I am a lawyer.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Alex Neve]

This is a very different issue, when we're talking about deportation as opposed to the sentence.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to direct this question to Mr. Stamatakis.

You mentioned the crack cocaine drug dealer. Could that very well have been a marijuana drug dealer, with regard to—

[Tom Stamatakis]

Certainly in my view it could have been—