Evidence of meeting #57 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 cases.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, we invite witnesses on both sides to come here. I think it behooves us, once we've asked a question, that the witness be given time to respond in a respectful manner.
4:15 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
I was going to continue. Using a false or fraudulent document is an offence under section 368 of the Criminal Code and carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years. A 20-year-old permanent resident who is convicted of using fake identification to get into a bar while visiting the United States is inadmissible under IRPA because of a foreign conviction. Even if they got no penalty, or a $200 fine, they would be inadmissible to Canada no matter if they spent their whole life in Canada. It is a criminal offence.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
When we talk about immigration, obviously Canada is one of the most welcoming countries. We've had the highest immigration levels in the last number of years.
I would have to think if we're going to admit people into Canada, we want them to succeed. The example you gave, although it's talking about someone going into a bar under age with false identification, I would have to say if we're going to choose the people who come into Canada, I would certainly want to choose the people who are most law abiding.
Although you have given that example, I think it's a pretty weak example. Again, if I'm going to choose one person over another, I would always tend to pick the person who's always law abiding. I think that's what most Canadians would expect with regard to the immigration system.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
The possession of marijuana and growing six pot plants, came up. My colleague from the NDP brought up the subject of Todd Baylis.
What are your thoughts on whether marijuana should be illegal or not, or whether you think it's involved in drug trafficking?
We had a representative from the Toronto Police Association in our last session. He was speaking with regard to the Todd Baylis issue. My father was a police officer so I remember that particular case. Clinton Gayle was a convicted trafficker of crack cocaine. I asked the representative from the Police Association whether instead of crack cocaine it could have been marijuana drug trafficking, and he said absolutely yes.
Whether your personal philosophy on marijuana is yes or no, do you recognize that marijuana is used in drug trafficking?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Many witnesses have been very concerned about a number of provisions of Bill C-43. What aspects of this bill do you think contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the international conventions that Canada has signed?
Could you please give us more detail about that?
4:15 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
Taking away the humanitarian discretion for persons who are barred under sections 34, 35, and 37, taking away the appeal right may in some circumstances be seen to violate the charter, and they can violate it both in respect of section 7 issues around risk and section 7 in relation to children and family rights. That's the European court case law, based on the one that says you can't deport people who came as children. It's based on family rights.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I would say that the charter plays into how the law is interpreted and applied, and the government has to apply the law in a way that is consistent with the charter. Of course, Barbara Jackman is right. If you remove humanitarian discretion, it violates the charter, as a result of which we're going to have to relocate the humanitarian discretion from the board to the officers who make these decisions about reporting and referring.
I've seen it happen with the shift from public danger to two years. They end up having interview after interview. They collect documents. This can go on for months, and frankly much longer than the appeals. That's why I say this law is not going to lead to faster removal. It's going to shift the humanitarian jurisdiction to the bureaucracy, which is going to function less efficiently and more slowly than the board is functioning now, and that will be as a result of the charter.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Clause 8 of Bill C-43 proposes giving new powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. One witness expressed concerns about these new powers.
What does your organization think about these new powers?
4:20 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
In regard to the three-year ban for public policy reasons, the legislation allows the minister to ban people for real reasons, not for vague reasons like public policy. I don't know how it would be applied, but having seen the way legislation gets applied in practice over time, it never is what it was intended in the first place. I have no doubt that the public policy grounds will lead to denying people admission on the basis of speech.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
There's one thing I wanted to raise from what I've heard. There's this assumption that this legislation actually leads to greater protection against criminality, but that assumption is based on the fact that somebody is reported, detected, tried, sentenced, and convicted. Many victims are people who are known to the perpetrators and you get reporting because the victims want the perpetrators to be stopped, but they don't necessarily want to have the perpetrators deported. Spousal abuse is a good example of where the victim will want the abuser stopped, but may not want the abuser deported. Once you increase the likelihood of deportation for these crimes, you decrease the likelihood of reporting and increase the danger to Canada.
4:20 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
On a related matter, I was going to add that I have spoken to the criminal bar on this and they're very concerned because right now, as I said, 80% of cases are pleaded to. Pleading will stop in these cases because they could not take a chance. There's going to be a backlog. There are going to be charter issues that are raised with delays in hearings. They're very concerned about it because there's absolutely no incentive to plead.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
With respect to these accelerated deportation orders, could you give us some specific ideas for improving this bill so that it takes into account human rights and the Charter?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
First of all, I stand behind what I said originally, that clause 24 should be dropped. I don't want to take a contrary position, but I would say in the alternative I think one of the things that could be done is to remove this foreign conviction or the foreign crime where there's no conviction and proof is less than the balance of probabilities. That's one thing.
Another thing is what's in the manual now. If somebody came here before the age of 18 and has been here for 10 years or more, these are very particular cases, which already in the manual, in the system, are treated in a different way. That could be in the legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Sorry, but we have to move on.
Mr. Dykstra and Mr. Menegakis, you have until the end of the hour.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you. I'll try to make sure that I leave some time for Mr. Menegakis.
I do appreciate your being here. I do appreciate the dialogue in terms of those who are 100% in favour of what we're doing in terms of moving forward with the legislation, and those who may find issues around some of it. I also appreciate the fact that you've acknowledged that changes are necessary and those who are serious criminals and do not have citizenship here in this country should not remain in this country.
The principal argument you're making is that there should be reasonable grounds for appeal for those individuals who may have issues. You pointed out a couple of circumstances. One was the issue around mental health. The other was around those who are minors who have lived here for a number of years and may not have Canadian citizenship and should therefore be granted.... You used an expression I haven't heard in a long time, Ms. Jackman, but it would give those individuals the ability to perhaps not have Canadian citizenship but at least to be treated as if they were in that same regard.
There are a couple of things. I don't think they're red herring arguments, but I think you would have to agree that they do not make up a majority of the cases we're talking about today.
4:25 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
It's probably not a majority, but it's a significant number.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'm not trying to corner you. I'm just trying to be clear that there is some agreement on moving forward to make sure that serious criminals who are not part of this country don't stay in this country. They don't deserve to be here. They haven't earned the right to be here. I appreciate that.
I have a couple of questions on the mental health side.
Robin, you made the point that there needs to be some sense of compassion in the decisions that are made. We've had presenters submit that, in fact, our judges are instructed to and do take into account issues such as mental illness when they are listening to cases. It seems to me you're suggesting that when mental health becomes an issue with respect to the crimes that may have been committed by the individual, a person's ability to appeal or be heard fairly isn't within our justice system, that it's at the IRB. I'd like to get some clarification from you on that. I have to say that I disagree with you on that point. I think fairness is involved. I think judges, and juries when they are there, take into account someone's personal capacity to understand the crime he or she has committed.
4:25 p.m.
Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual
Well, that's a very fine line. You can have people who are convicted because they didn't raise the mental health issue in the criminal trial. That happens quite a lot, because they don't want to end up in an institution for mental health problems instead of getting six months in jail. Six months in jail is a lot easier. That's a problem.