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.