Will do. My apologies. Sorry, translator.
I also have concern that trials and lengthy sentences are avoided by pleading guilty to a charge of two years minus a day. This allows the foreign national to seek review of his deportation order.
Multiple assaults, failure to comply with court orders, fraud, drug trafficking, in all these offences deportation was put off by an average of six years, because of the sentence length. I think a gap clearly exists. The criminal justice system and the immigration review system do not align, resulting in a situation that can be exploited.
There is concern over the public policy consideration. With respect, I feel these fears are overstated, particularly when looked at contextually. I see the provision as the final stop in ensuring Canada’s safety and security, not the front-end consideration to admissibility. The notwithstanding clause is essentially a public policy consideration, designed to override section 2 and sections 7 through 15 of the charter. It is only used in exceptional circumstances to make important policy decisions that are isolated from judicial review. I do not mean to equate the two, but a comparison here may prove beneficial.
Invoking the notwithstanding clause, though, has ramifications for the government of the day. The political cost could be significant, and I believe this is why we do not see it invoked frequently. Respectfully, in the larger context, this is how I see the public policy consideration being used. Any misuse of this provision, particularly in today’s real-time media and information context, I think would prove to be politically damaging. If used in exceptional circumstances to address a gap such as barring a foreign national who spews hate speech, I think this is in the Canadian interest.
The Criminal Code of Canada in sections 318, 319, and 320 forbids hate propaganda, with clear definitions. The Canadian Human Rights Act, under sections 3 and 13, also has definitions. Hate speech may not be a crime in another country, but it is in ours. Therefore, I see this provision as closing a gap. It is not unreasonable, especially when the government of the day has to consider the enormous political cost if the provision is misused.
Lastly, has the committee discussed the public policy consideration to be used for admissibility in extraordinary cases? The example of the foreign national who came at a very young age and knows only Canada as his home has been cited many times. Could the provision be used to keep somebody in Canada for humanitarian or compassionate grounds for these rare cases? I am not sure if this was the intent of the public policy consideration, but if used in this way it could certainly address some concerns that have come before this committee.
In the larger context of national security, which includes information gathering coupled with law enforcement along the full continuum of the immigration process, taking into account potential political considerations, I feel the bill is balanced and proactively addresses many of the issues Canada faces, while also serving the Canadian interest in the long term.
At this point, I would ask my colleague Professor Perchal to speak more slowly than I did and highlight some more specific cases.
Thank you.