Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Immigration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Motions No. 21 and No. 22 are grouped for debate, but will be voted on separately.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-44, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38, on page 15, with the following:

"103. (1) On being satisfied that a notice of appearance or a summons has been served on any person, the Deputy Minister or a senior immigration officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of the person where".

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-44, in Clause 19, be amended in the French version: a ) by replacing line 41, on page, 15, with the following:

"sion aux termes du"; and b ) by replacing line 3, on page, 16, with the following:

"publique ou qu'elle ne comparaîtra pas à l'interrogatoire, à l'enquête ou au prononcé de la décision, ou".

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Madam Speaker, we continue with the amendments to Bill C-44 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

The changes proposed to clause 19 of Bill C-44 by the official opposition have two objects. First, Motion No. 21 would add the words, and I quote: "On being satisfied that a notice of appearance or a summons has been served on any person"-

This addition is necessary if we want to make sure that a notice of appearance or a summons has been served before an arrest warrant is issued against an immigrant. The government must make sure that the person summoned knows that he or she will have to answer questions, appear or give evidence, before issuing an arrest warrant.

The amendment would require proof that a notice of appearance has been served before proceeding with the arrest. This might seem a bit hypothetical, but without it we might be faced with regrettable situations. For example, a permanent resident could be summoned for questioning as part of an investigation. There could be several reasons for not answering the summons: change of address, difficulties communicating with the people with whom he or she lives, or simply oversight by spouse or children.

Can we issue an arrest warrant for reasons that trivial? Did we think of all the possible consequences of an arrest which might not be warranted? Why not avoid all these unfortunate situations by amending the bill to make sure that the person summoned or asked to appear has indeed been notified to do so.

I believe that the other amendment to clause 19 of Bill C-44 will be unanimously approved by the members of this House. Basically, it seeks to align the French and the English versions of the bill.

Clause 19 of the French version does not mention the reasons why a person may not appear as a witness or for an inquiry or an examination. When comparing the French version with the English one, it becomes obvious that clause 19 is not subdivided the same way, since in English there are two subsections, ( a ) and ( b ), and none in French.

Moreover, words equivalent to "or proceeding in relation to the decision" do not appear in the French version. Our amendment seeks to specify the reason for the appearance. It would be very unfortunate indeed if these amendments were not adopted. It is important that the laws be the same for francophones and anglophones alike, and that they be as precise and well understood as possible, in both official languages.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again my intervention will be very brief. I believe that the intention of Motion No. 21 is to further reduce the intent of Bill C-44. The Reform Party members will oppose that intention.

With regard to Motion No. 22, I have never quite figured out what this is about. I will leave that to those who are going to square the French and the English on this translation.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond first to Motion No. 21 which seeks to modify clause 19 of Bill C-44.

Clause 19 essentially authorizes the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of individuals who do not appear for determination before a senior immigration official.

The Bloc motion before us today would require that the person be served a summons to appear prior to the event. I would be opposed to it because the amendment would greatly restrict the ability to issue warrants for the arrest of persons who would constitute a danger to the public or perhaps a feeling, for good reason, among officials of my department that the individuals will not appear for a removal inquiry. Currently warrants are issued on the basis of objective criteria reviewable by the Federal Court. Indeed there is a check and balance within the system.

With the requirement in this clause we are trying to seek the assistance of other enforcement agencies, namely the police, through the issuance of a warrant. If we were to go along with the amendment proposed by the Bloc, it would mean that warrants could not be issued for individuals who might be dangerous to the country or may not appear as required under the law. If we cannot find the individual who may have gone underground, I cannot see logically how we could serve the individual with a proper summons anyway.

The clause is being amended to permit the warrant to be issued. We are not suggesting anything more than simply through the processing of a warrant seeking the assistance of other enforcement agencies and thereby helping Immigration Canada to have the individual who was to appear before the immigration official do so at once.

On the second amendment my comments are very similar to the member who spoke just a moment ago. I am not sure there is a difference between the French and the English text. If there is upon reflection by my officials, I certainly would not stand in the way of making sure that what the bill says in English is clearly congruent with what it says in our other official language, namely French.

I am afraid I do not have that information before me. There was confusion when the Bloc put forward its Motion No. 22 respecting the meaning of the amendment. Perhaps we will have an opportunity before we vote in the House at report stage to seek clarification of its second motion.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member already took part in the debate.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Not on this motion. It was on the previous motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Then I recognize the hon. member for Bourassa.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I do not understand why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is a a man of law, opposes that motion.

In any country, in any society, arrest warrants must be used with great caution. People's freedom is at stake. We want to make sure that certain basic precautions are taken before the execution of an arrest warrant, namely, we want the individual concerned to be advised in advance and him or her to receive a notice to appear before a warrant is issued.

As we all know, in every democratic society, a judge normally has the power to issue warrants for arrest when there is sufficiently convincing evidence or reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime. In the case of an obvious crime, a police officer is empowered to arrest a person, but this it is not the case here. We must be careful. We cannot give arbitrary powers to a government official who might abuse them.

As for the second motion, we checked the English and French versions of the text, and our research staff did too, and we found that there is a difference between the English and the French versions of this clause.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would remind the hon. member for Bourassa that, as the mover of the motion, he should have spoken first. I would ask that, from now on, those hon. members who move motions make their speech first.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.