Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the motions introduced by my colleague for Bourassa. Of course I will not list them all. I would simply like to say that the motions which are being debated seek to
amend Bill C-44, and in particular clause 3(2) and (4.01) and, of course, the corresponding references.
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the general scope of those motions, particularly with respect to subsection (4.01), which confers a wider jurisdiction to the senior immigration officer at the expense of the adjudicator and this transfer of authority seems unjustified to us.
Indeed senior immigration officers who are in fact officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration would be given greater powers at the expense of the fair treatment provided for by the quasi-judicial mechanism, that is, the power of the adjudicator.
Subsection (4.01) confers and re-inforces what was already provided for in the act, namely the concept of expeditious justice without any procedural guarantees and without the presence of a lawyer or a counsellor.
Besides being authorized to make exclusion orders against certain persons already referred to in section 19 of the act, under Bill C-44, the senior immigration officer will be allowed to make an exclusion order against all classes of inadmissible persons, to order an inquiry and to allow such persons to leave Canada forthwith.
Obviously, in our opinion, the government is slowly dismantling the arbitration structure for the benefit of its officials. We should be concerned about that and reject the measures proposed to that end. This is the precise purpose of the motions that the hon. member for Bourassa explained so well.