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.