Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-14.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I'm not sure that Mr. Fortin correctly interpreted the amendment before us.
We're not talking about the effect of a criminal conviction on immigration status or admissibility to Canada. What Mr. Lawton is doing with this amendment is saying that reverse onus would apply if, under these four sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when convicted, folks would be inadmissible to Canada.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already makes them inadmissible upon conviction if it's organized crime, terrorism or something very serious. What the amendment is saying is that, if we're dealing with one of those, reverse onus should apply on bail.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Can I respond to Mr. Baber, even though it's not how we usually operate?
I'm wondering about this because, in the scenario we're talking about, the accused person has not yet been found guilty. They've just been charged. They may be found guilty. If they are found guilty, there's no longer a problem, obviously, or at least my question no longer applies. However, if the person is found innocent and had been detained beforehand, will that have an impact, whether during or after their detention, on them, their family, their immigration application or their children?
I'm wondering what's being done to all these people. Perhaps my concern is unfounded—that's what I would have liked to hear—but I'm being told that nobody knows, so I'm still concerned about that. Do you understand?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'll just say, in response to Monsieur Fortin's questions, that this does not amend anything in the immigration process. As it stands right now, a foreign national who is charged with one of these offences could be detained already. Under the current law, there is nothing stopping them from being arrested, detained or given bail, and then convicted or found to be not guilty. That immigration process would play out. The only thing we are changing, I would say to Monsieur Fortin, is that there is a reverse onus on bail for people in that subset. Because this is the only thing we're changing, there would be no effect whatsoever on their immigration status, given what we're doing here.
All we're doing is expanding a category of offences that's already designated and ensuring that the reverse onus applies. It doesn't even change whether someone would be eligible for bail or not. It just shifts that burden.
This is not touching the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for a reason.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
No, it's just a comment.
I thank Mr. Lawton, and I hope Monsieur Fortin is satisfied.
I'd like to point out that, in the legislation currently drafted, subclause 23(9) adds a provision at the end. The very last section in the existing section already has an expansion to the list of reverse onus offences—offences that are contrary to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
If you look at page 9 of the bill, subclause 23(9) says, “Paragraph 515(6)(a)...is amended”. In subparagraph 23(9)(xiv)—the last part—reverse onus would apply to an offence “under section 117 or 118 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”.
All we're doing here is adding a couple more...in an attempt to expand a bit on what Bill C-14 is already doing.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Can I make a suggestion here, ladies and gentlemen? Rather than having a back and forth across the table, why don't we suspend for a couple of minutes to sort out what the meaning is and what these sections referenced in there are referring to? Then we can come back to have a more informed discussion, perhaps, of a vote?
I'll suspend for a few—
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
May I propose that we continue? Maybe we can just stand it down for a second, and I'll look up the answer. We're almost there; we're almost—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I call the meeting back to order.
At the point when we suspended, nobody really had the floor. Let's reinforce that rule.
I'll start with Mr. Baber.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
We went to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that section 117 applies to human smuggling and trafficking. Basically, the point I'm making is that Bill C-14, in its present form, already imports certain provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for the purpose of making such offences reverse onus offences. What Mr. Lawton is proposing with his amendment is that we expand that further by making some other very serious offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also reverse onus offences, including terrorism, organized crime, treason and stuff like that.
I think that this makes a lot of sense. We're already doing that to start with; let's do just a little better.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have a very quick question for the officials: In considering this amendment, would there be any charter risks?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, I do think there are charter risks, and I probably wasn't explicit in my response on that point. We know, with existing reverse onuses that have been upheld, that they have been linked to furthering the purposes of the bail system. As I said, the bail system and just cause for detention are anchored in those three grounds for detention. Evidence would then be necessary to demonstrate, for foreign nationals accused of committing certain offences, that there is a clear nexus with that fact, with flight risk, with public safety and with confidence in the administration of justice. Absent that evidence, the risks become much more attenuated.
I would just add one other point for awareness. If I understand the motion correctly, for a number of the grounds for inadmissibility, which were discussed already—security, organized crime, etc.—there are existing reverse onuses that address that behaviour in a different way when a person is charged with those specific offences. Somebody charged with a terrorism offence is subject to a reverse onus. You already have that availability, much like I explained to Mr. Housefather, with the situation where the person is not ordinarily a resident in Canada.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Just very briefly, are there charter issues with other parts of the legislation that have been raised by stakeholders, civil liberties advocates, as potential areas where any tightening of bail restrictions would leave legislation vulnerable to a charter challenge?
Senior General Counsel and Director General, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As I said last week when I was here with Minister Fraser, the charter statement does provide a fairly detailed explanation of the intersection of the proposed amendments with charter rights. Certainly, like any changes to the bail system, those are going to be looked at closely. We have listened to the testimony. People have expressed concerns about potential charter risks.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
There are other charter issues in the legislation, as with anything that deals with bail. I just want to make sure that people don't see that as being a point for not advancing something because there could be concerns raised.
