Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry, I just want to see if any one else wants to answer the second question because—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You'd better let him finish because all you've got left is 15 seconds.

Go ahead, sir.

[George Platsis]

I'm willing to let it go.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I guess we're going to move on to Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If this bill passes, it will have a profound impact on a lot of people. Hundreds of thousands of people every year fill out documents and paperwork overseas. There is absolutely no doubt that misrepresentation occurs. A lot of it is intentional, where someone is trying to intentionally mislead the Government of Canada.

Equally, there is a considerable amount of it that's done unintentionally, maybe through a representative or it's an innocent mistake. In those situations—and we're not talking about a few, we're talking about hundreds, maybe even into the thousands—where it's unintentionally done, we're increasing the penalty. We're saying it's from two years to five years that you're not going to be able to apply to come to Canada.

Does this seem to be fair for those individuals—and we're not talking hundreds, we're talking thousands—that there is no system in place that would allow them the opportunity to explain why it was an accident? Those do happen. Those happen in Canada in filling out all different types of forms. Is that a part of the legislation that you think should be changed to take into consideration misrepresentation where it's not done intentionally?

[George Platsis]

Do you have any cases of what you would consider unintentional? I can depart from there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sure. Let's say, for example, a gentlemen finds a young lady, and he marries her in another country. In the form, he's asked where he worked and where he got his education. He inadvertently forgets that he worked part-time at some facility, puts down his education, lists other things, but didn't put down where it was that he worked for four months on a part-time basis.

Because of that misrepresentation, he's not able to apply for five years. They're going to be separated as a spousal unit. There are hundreds of examples of that sort of nature. Is it fair to increase it from two years to five years?

[George Platsis]

With respect, I wouldn't know if that was unintentional. I'll give my own case of when I lived in the United States. I had to go through a similar process where I had to give my history, fill out all the forms. There's an onus on the person to actually make sure not only to double but to triple and quadruple check.

When I was living in the United States, it's not my right to live in another country. I am a guest in someone else's home, and I think the onus is on me to make sure my information is correct. Do honest mistakes happen? Yes. I'm not sure forgetting to list that you were working somewhere for four months would, in my own opinion, constitute an honest mistake.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We're entitled to agree or disagree.

[George Platsis]

Absolutely.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I talk to hundreds of immigrants every year and witness first-hand what I would classify as innocent mistakes. I don't believe that we should be punishing them excessively. That's one of the reasons I think it's important to see an amendment of that nature.

Equally, I used an example earlier which was actually presented to the committee by a former chair of the immigration division of the Canadian Bar Association. The example is that of a youth who's 19 years old, who's a landed immigrant in Canada, who graduates, crosses the border, uses a false document, and as a result is going to be deported, unless of course the ultimate appeal, the Minister of Immigration, could say yes. But so much for the rule of law or a quasi-judicial system that would ensure there would be a protection because that principle could apply for virtually all cases, period.

There seems to be a fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, I believe most Canadians would see that as something that doesn't warrant being deported for and not having the opportunity to have an appeal, because someone used false identification in order to get served alcohol at age 19 or 20, and they were five years old when they came to Canada. Would you not agree with that?

[George Platsis]

Respectfully, I would say the person is using false identification. If someone who has come here at an age, to use your example, of five years old, and has lived a majority of their life in Canada, I think they're relatively conscious about their decision to use fake ID.

If you're saying that it's disproportionate, again, when you're going into another country, with respect, you have to respect and value their own laws. You are a guest within their own country.

Do you want to jump in, Walter?

[LCol Walter Perchal]

If I may. I would leave penalty to lawmakers, and you are lawmakers. I think you've opened a far more difficult problem, and certainly one that I'm going to give some thought to, which is how you separate intentionality. You have indicated that the vast majority of issues on intentionality are intentional. It is the minority that are not intentional. How do you do that?

One of the things that we could do—and again, I believe in protecting the house as far forward an offence as possible—is something which to date we've chosen not to do. I believe, and this is my personal view only, we should have a foreign intelligence service. We should have somebody who sits there and checks the form. That can be reviewed in an embassy and can be discussed by an immigration officer at an embassy in a foreign country before it ever becomes an issue that contacts us here in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to move on, sir.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us.

Like a lot of my other colleagues here, I, too, am a product of immigrant parents. My parents came here from two very poor villages in Greece.

We're talking about a bill today. I've heard the word “immigrants” thrown around, unfortunately. It's not a bill designed to keep immigrants out. It's a bill designed to faster remove foreign criminals from our country.

My parents, like all immigrants, or like most, came here with a dream. They worked very, very hard. One of the most poignant moments in my life was the day I was sworn in as a member of Parliament. There were 35 people in the room, and there was my dad sitting in the front. While everybody else was smiling and taking pictures, he had tears streaming down his face. I'll never forget that. This is not a bill designed to go after parents like mine, law-abiding citizens who came here, worked hard, helped build this nation, and grow families to be contributing citizens in this country. It's designed to keep people like Clinton Gayle out.

I don't want to be flippant about discussing the case of Clinton Gayle, because here was a foreign criminal, a known drug dealer who shot and killed Todd Baylis, a young police officer, 24 years of age, in the prime of his life, engaged to be married to a beautiful young lady, and whose parents and that young lady and people who loved him are still feeling that pain today.

Mr. Gayle was in the country, unfortunately, because he had an appeal process, and while his case was being appealed, he decided to perpetuate more crime.

Here is my first question: Todd Baylis died at the hands of someone who was a known criminal. Since he wasn't removed from Canada, he continued to live that life. Do you think known criminals should have a right to an appeal process? Foreign criminals.

[George Platsis]

Is this the question of a serious criminality?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, I'm talking about serious criminality.

[George Platsis]

In this case, my own opinion is no. They have a long list of history. As I mentioned, in the cases that have been presented, you have cases of assault, sexual assault, fraud, drug trafficking, weapons charges. We should really ask ourselves whether these are the people we want in Canada. Again, I'm going to go to my own case. When I live in another country, I am a guest in that home. When someone comes to our country, they're a guest in our home. I think it is a reasonable expectation that they respect our values, our laws.

As a guest, if they're breaking these laws especially on such charges as assault, and repeated assault and multiple assault, the resources that we're using for their appeal and for keeping them in a detention centre or in the federal prison system are resources that we are diverting away, that we could be actually using for immigrants and refugees who actually need that. It's anything from education so they can integrate into the country, to helping them find a job.

I see an issue like that and I don't know what the costs of the entire appeal would be, but that takes resources away from people who have legitimate use for them.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I might add that last week was a constituency week, so as parliamentarians we were back in our ridings. Let me just say your response is something that was echoed in the many meetings I had with constituents in my great riding of Richmond Hill, almost irrespective of political party affiliation. Everyone had the same opinion. Foreign criminals should be removed from this country as soon as we identify that they're criminals.

Mr. Perchal, I see that—

[LCol Walter Perchal]

If I may, again, I don't want to beat this to death, but I think it's an important point. We need to know who these people are before they get here. There are some simple things that can be done and more elaborate things that can be done, but really the time to know about somebody coming into your house is before you let them through the door. Let's give consideration to, I would respectfully submit, the idea of finding out about people before they land.

If somebody shows up at a Canadian airport, and has no documents because they are in the toilet of the airplane, what we should do is a simple measure. We should ask that an electronic copy of the documents they boarded with be sent to Canada first. This is electronic data transfer. It's simple. If they now show up and claim they don't know, or say, “I've lost my name and I'm actually somebody else”, well, because we've checked with an appropriate authority, Canadian or otherwise, we can say, “You came on this thing. This thing says you're a criminal and you have one of two choices: incarceration or deportation.” That is $50,000 of appeals done in 15 seconds.

There are efficiencies to be had here, but the critical variable, respectfully, sir, is we do not have sufficient information about the people who are coming into our house. This is a real concern for all of us.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Let me offer you this as my time runs down. I'm sure I only have about 15 seconds left.

Is that right, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's about that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

One of the things under consideration right now as a result of discussions we've had with the United States in the perimeter security agreement is the implementation of the electronic travel authorization, the ETA, which does precisely that.

[LCol Walter Perchal]

Yes, absolutely.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Someone will have to fill in that documentation to be checked out prior to getting on that airplane, or to entering into our country by land. We'll identify them up front.

I'm really, really pleased that you brought that up. Thank you very much.