moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-44, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8, on page 1, with the following:
"made under subsection 23(4),".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 3, with the following:
"may, subject to subsections (4), (4.2)".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 45 to 48, on page 3, and lines 1 to 25, on page 4.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 4, with the following:
"tion (4) shall truthfully provide such".
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 4, with the following:
"or a conditional departure order".
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-44, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 44, on page 6, with the following:
"subsection 23(4) or a departure order".
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 7, with the following:
"to in any of subsections 23(4) or".
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 8, with the following:
"under subsection 23(4) or (4.2) or".
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 8, with the following:
"under subsection 23(4) or (4.2) or 27(4)".
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-44, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 8, with the following:
"23 (4.2) or 27(6), shall cause an".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-44, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 4, on page 15, with the following:
"section 20(1) or 23(4) or (4.2) or".
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-44, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 15, with the following:
"pursuant to subsection 20(1) or 23(4) or (4.2); or".
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-44, in Clause 25, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 26, on page 19.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44 to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act went through first reading in the House of Commons on June 17, 1994. It was passed at second
reading on September 27 with our support, because we supported the principle of this bill, and was then referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The committee tabled its report on December 8, after hearing several organizations concerned with this bill. It is a very complex and highly technical bill. We moved several amendments and the Speaker grouped them into five main motions for debate.
The first debate deals with the issue of the powers of senior immigration officers, or SIO, as they are called in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The main clauses relating to the powers of the senior immigration officer are clauses 4 and 19 of Bill C-44. These already very wide powers are being considerably increased with respect to the exclusion of refugee status claimants at Canadian borders or entry points.
Another clause relating to powers has been included in Bill C-44 and would give the senior immigration officer the authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of people who do not show up for an examination or inquiry.
Clause 19 of Bill C-44 says that a warrant for the arrest of any person may be issued where a decision is to be made pursuant to subsection 27(4), that is administrative removal.
Section 103( i ) of the Immigration Act states that a warrant for the arrest and detention may be issued against any person where an examination or inquiry is to be held and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the examination or inquiry.
Clause 19 of Bill C-44 amends section 103 of the Immigration Act so that a warrant for arrest may be issued against any person where a decision is to be made by the senior immigration officer. That warrant for arrest may be served by the police so that the person is forced to appear.
My amendment would ensure that a notification to appear or to attend would be sent before any warrant for arrest is issued. I believe that we must add this notification as a prerequisite in the bill.
The bill gives too much authority to the senior immigration officer who already has enough. We must prevent unnecessary and arbitrary arrests, particularly since this arrest warrant is not issued by a judge, as it normally is in all democratic societies, but by a civil servant.
Often, people cannot appear because they changed address and did not get the notification. Sometimes the civil servant's computer did not take in the person's new address. Those are my comments on the power to issue warrants for arrest.
Let us now briefly analyze the additional power given to the senior immigration officer, who would have the authority to exclude some persons at the border or point of entry. As things now stand, the senior immigration officer has a specific and very wide jurisdiction. He may make an exclusion order for anyone arriving at the Canadian border. At the present time, if the senior immigration officer receives a person who does not come under his jurisdiction, he must order an inquiry and refer the case to an adjudicator.
With Bill C-44, the minister wants to change that and significantly increase the powers of the senior immigration officer. He wants to allow this person to make exclusion orders, even outside his jurisdiction, and this is unacceptable. This means that the senior immigration officer can, if he is convinced that the case does not warrant an inquiry, refuse entry, at the border, to someone who might need Canada's protection.
We totally disagree with clause 4 of Bill C-44, for various reasons. The bill is not consistent. On the one hand, it says that some cases do not come under the jurisdiction of senior immigration officers, but on the other, it allows these same officers to make exclusion orders without inquiry, and this is serious.
If the government wants fair and consistent legislation, it should say that when a case is processed by a senior immigration officer who does not have jurisdiction, it must be referred to the adjudicator for an inquiry. The adjudicator is a civil servant who is supposed to be impartial. Senior immigration officers have less expertise and less understanding of the laws and regulations than adjudicators.
Ever since the 1985 Supreme Court decision in the Singh case, every person in Canada, not only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to have a fair and just system, there must be an inquiry whenever the situation is not clear, in particular in those cases which do not come under the jurisdiction of the senior officer.
The Supreme Court also said that the possible costs of such an inquiry on certain refugees do not constitute a reasonable justification to limit this right. According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the government deems an inquiry to be too expensive is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of the right to have one.
Other clauses of the bill give considerably more power to public officials and I will get back to that later. For instance, customs officers will be allowed to search international mail, examine documents, and in some cases, immigration officers will be able to seize those documents.
Therefore, for all these reasons, we are opposed to this considerable increase in the authority of senior immigration officers. Under the circumstances, we believe that the status quo is fairer and more just. This is why we presented our motion to amend Bill C-44.