[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 4, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The order of the day is Bill C-237, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.
We welcome Mr. Janko Peric. But before we begin, I would like to have agreement on the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You have copies in front of you. This was following a resolution from Mr. Nunez to invite Mr. Gordon Fairweather, the chairman of the advisory committee, and Mrs. Mawani, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, before the committee. So I have the formal recommendation of the subcommittee. Do we agree?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Thank you.
We will begin with Mr. Peric, who has 15 minutes to make a presentation, and then there'll be questions from the members.
Mr. Janko Peric, MP (Cambridge): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colleagues, I'm pleased to finally have the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss my private member's bill and the important issue of the safety of all Canadians. I'm sure we all agree that public safety is extremely important and that as legislators we have the responsibility to look for ways to improve the security of all Canadians.
I'm seeking to do my part with Bill C-237. I know improvements can be made to this bill that will make it a more effective piece of legislation, and that is the purpose of this meeting today. I'm pleased this bill will now be receiving the attention that it deserves and needs.
Canada has a long and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants. I and countless others have benefited from this tradition. However, there are some who have come to this country, taken advantage of its generosity, and disobeyed its laws. It is because of this small group and the sometimes tragic results of their actions that we need to take action now.
As I'm sure you are all aware from the briefing material that was supplied to you, I was prompted to draft this bill as a result of the brutal murder of Georgina Leimonis and Toronto Constable Todd Baylis in 1994 by individuals who had evaded deportation. These were terrible, preventable tragedies, but this bill is about more than just the brutal slaying of these two young Canadians, it's about the safety of all Canadians. It is about doing what we can do to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future. It is about respect and honour, and it is about trying to keep a violent minority element of society off the streets of our cities and towns, and removing them from our country so that we can ensure our safety and the safety of our children.
.1540
Bill C-237 would permit a court, in addition to any other sentence, to order the removal of non-citizens convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years. Offenders would have access to appeal under the criminal process, but not under the Immigration Act.
The former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made great strides to limit access by serious criminals to immigration procedures to delay their removal from Canada, and as a result of the amendments made through the Immigration Act last year, the rights of serious criminals to appeal under the system has been limited. Offenders could no longer be eligible for any form of early release or parole if they are serving a sentence for a criminal offence. However, I remain concerned that there is room for serious offenders to fall through the cracks in the system, so there is room for improvement.
There is no way of knowing how many non-citizens remain in Canada in violation of the terms of their entry, or for whom arrest warrants have been issued. Some may have left of their own accord, but others are free among us. This should lead one to the conclusion that we need to take control of a situation that is getting out of control. It appears logical to me the most promising starting point is when we have offenders in custody, convicted and sentenced. We can no longer allow gaps in the system.
As of last August, there were 1,349 foreign national offenders under the jurisdiction of the Correctional Service of Canada, 337 of whom where on conditional release. The average annual cost of supervising and taking care of them is about $45,753 and $8,527, respectively. The cost to keep foreign offenders in Canada is high, but we see that the cost of doing nothing is even higher. There is a need for additional change to the Immigration Act to ensure that non-citizens convicted of serious criminal offences not be allowed to fall through the cracks and await their deportation. I think this bill fits that need.
We are all aware that Clinton Gayle had been ordered deported in 1991. One of the suspects in the murder of Georgina Leimonis was in Canada on a stay of deportation when he committed this latest offence. We have all heard stories over the years and wondered how the system could have failed so tragically.
I would like to see an end to these kinds of stories. I hope you will look at this bill with an open mind and with the knowledge that it has the backing of the Canadian Police Association.
Madam Chair, I'm pleased to see Mr. Scott Newark here today on behalf of the Canadian Police Association, as well as the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, Victims of Violence, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and CAVEAT. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the merits of this bill, and I will be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peric.
Would you like to introduce to the committee the two people who are with you?
Mr. Peric: They're my staff members, Shelagh Anderson and Stan Granic.
The Chair: Welcome.
[Translation]
We will begin with Mr. Nunez, who has the floor for ten minutes.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I would like to thank my colleague, Janko Peric, who is an immigrant like me. I am aware of his concerns with respect to this issue and I've heard him speak on other occasions. He was part of our Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
.1545
This is an important topic. He told us about two murders committed in Toronto that we all condemned. I note, as well, that he has support, particularly from the police associations. The Bloc Québécois feels that the state has both the right and the duty to protect its citizens. In this regard, I share his concern.
I believe that you did not get the support of the immigration and refugee groups which appeared before us, in great number, when we discussed Bill C-44, although I do not know whether or not you made any attempt to obtain such a support. I do not know whether you can explain their absence this time. This is very important because we are dealing with hundreds of organizations that are part of, for example, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, the Toronto Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, etc. Can you explain this lack of support?
[English]
Mr. Peric: Madam Chair, the organizations supporting the bill are probably the organizations in this country most concerned about the safety of our streets today. That is because they are involved with the community of Canadians.
I believe they are concerned because they have evidence and they're involved with Canadians on a daily basis. The refugee board and members of the refugee board are not involved with that particular sector. They're involved with refugees. Their main concern is how to make them comfortable in this country, and I really and truly support that.
I believe that the great majority of Canadians are very generous. That's why we have support from the community for immigrants and refugees, but I am concerned about the few rotten apples who had the privilege to come to this country, as you and I did.
We respect the laws of this country and the people of this country. A great majority of immigrants who come to Canada are hard-working people. The country was built by immigrants and it will be built even stronger, not only by Canadians but by new immigrants. But as I said, there is concern about the safety of our streets.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Clause 4 in your bill does not comply with the Privacy Act. I am always concerned when unauthorized people have access to private information about an individual. The Crown will have access to all information contained in immigration files, files that are not always very accurate. I have a bit of a problem with that. How do you explain the fact that clause 4 is a departure from this Act which is fundamental to our system?
[English]
Mr. Peric: The Crown would have access to their files after they commit the crime, and even before that. The proposal is that the courts would bill the Crown with those files and cases. If we can't trust the Crown, then something is wrong.
.1550
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I would like to make another comment with respect to double sentencing. A court will determine a sentence for the crimes committed and then this court, or another one, or indeed this judge or another, will hear the case to have the offender deported. Double sentencing violates our rights as well.
Up until now, expulsion has been a Department of Immigration administrative measure, but when courts intervene in deportation proceedings, it becomes a legal issue. Even if the Supreme Court is not clear on this, I think that, by bringing deportation proceeding before the courts, we will probably draw the conclusion that two sentences are required for the same offence, which is contrary to the standards of law.
[English]
Mr. Peric: Absolutely not. I am not inventing any extra punishment for offenders. What I'm trying to do with this bill is streamline the process, speed up the process. Right now Canadian courts have the right to sentence them. After they serve the sentence they have to wait for a deportation order, which at present is issued by the immigration department. That could take two or three years. That's the crack they fall into that we want to close.
Giving the authority to Canadian courts, to Canadian judges, is not punishing the foreign offenders. It's just an administrative decision, nothing else. We would eliminate that double administration.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I would also like to ask you whether or not you really feel that this bill is necessary. I do not really see the need for this bill given that the Department of Immigration already has very broad powers to ban the entry of individuals who have committed crimes abroad or to deport individuals who have committed crimes here in Canada. In addition, Bill C-44, which was adopted last year, gives the government additional powers.
I have also noted that the immigrant crime rate is lower than the crime rate of people born here. I visited a few prisons and observed that there were fewer immigrants than native born Canadians amongst the inmate population. I would therefore ask you, once again, whether you feel that this bill is absolutely necessary and, if so, why.
[English]
Mr. Peric: Absolutely. It is necessary. As I mentioned in my speech, the previous Minister of Immigration did improve, but he didn't get far enough. Thank God the number of criminals is dropping, not just among the Canadian-born but also among newcomers to this country. I hope it will drop to zero so that we can live in safe communities.
.1555
As I said, this bill is necessary because the present system is not effective enough. It should be much faster. It should speed up the process. We don't need two systems in place to deal with one issue.
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I want to commend you on this bill. I think it's a very important document, a very important private member's bill. I agree with you that when people choose to live in Canada they should be respectful of the laws under which this country operates, that if they break those laws to the seriousness of getting a sentence, or could get a sentence of 10 years, they obviously are not interested in living within the laws of the country and basically have given up the right to stay.
But in looking at this bill, I have some questions as to its application. When you talk about deporting somebody who has committed a serious crime, are you talking about deporting them after they have served their period of incarceration or are you talking about immediately deporting them?
Mr. Peric: We can't deport them immediately. They have to serve a portion of their sentence here in Canada. It would be up to a judge as to how long they would have to serve here. After that they would have to be deported and serve the rest of their sentence in their country of origin.
Ms Meredith: What happens if the country from which they've come doesn't have a reciprocal agreement with Canada? I think I saw something that said Canada has agreements with twenty countries. What happens if they don't come from one of those countries? What do you do then?
Mr. Peric: Approximately ten years ago we had agreements with seven countries, I believe, and today we have agreements with twenty countries. We would have to negotiate with that particular country and hopefully be very successful in coming to that agreement.
Ms Meredith: So basically you're saying for those twenty countries that we have these enabling agreements with, that should be part of the sentencing. The judge, in certainty of sentencing, says you are going to spend four years incarcerated in Canada, after which you will be deported.
Mr. Peric: To Luxembourg, say, or to a country with which we have an agreement. If we don't have an agreement, then in the meantime Canada would have to negotiate an agreement with that particular country.
Ms Meredith: How are you going to deal with cases such as that in British Columbia, where a man by the name of Jhatoo murdered a mother of six children? The IRB determined that he had been rehabilitated and therefore would be allowed to stay in Canada, even though he had been given a deportation order. How are you going to contend with that with this legislation?
Mr. Peric: Judges would have to make that decision. No agency would have power over all the judges' decisions. In that case, he would have to serve part of the sentence here, be deported and then serve the rest of the sentence in the country he came from.
Ms Meredith: Does this bill take away the right of somebody to claim refugee status or to appeal to the IRB? Does this bill take away that element from them?
Mr. Peric: This bill will take away any opportunity for appeal except the sentence appeal, which is under the Sentencing Act.
Ms Meredith: Then they could appeal the decision of the judge in the court of law as to the sentence they got.
Mr. Peric: To reduce the sentence, but that's about it.
.1600
Ms Meredith: With this legislation, then, do you see in some cases where an individual could still fall within the cracks? You have said that within three years they have to make -
Mr. Peric: No. I'm sorry, I have to correct something. I did send you a correction to clause 3, under ``Application of removal''. I am proposing a change. New proposed paragraph 32.1(3)(a) would read:
- hold a hearing on the matter immediately following the imposition of the sentence
Mr. Peric: Yes. It's immediately after.
Ms Meredith: So when he is before the judge on the initial charge, the judge at that time would give clarity of sentence by sentencing him to x number of years of incarceration in Canada and then deportation following that.
Mr. Peric: Right.
Ms Meredith: Okay. That clarifies it.
I think I'll pass and pick up on a second round.
The Chair: Certainly. Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
In our first introduction to this bill, Mr. Peric, we brought some concerns to your attention. I'm wondering now, in light of the time that has passed and so forth, what kind of clarification exists in your mind regarding the concerns raised with Bill C-316 - or whatever it was at that time - and how they have been dealt with.
First of all, I still see the possibility of wrangling going on and Supreme Court cases that could carry on for a great period of time, that could cost the Canadian taxpayers not only hundreds of thousands of dollars but possibly millions of dollars before some of these cases ever get solved. In our constitution we always have the right provided for all our citizens, or all people in our country, to have access to the courts to protect themselves.
Mr. Peric: Except we're talking about non-citizens. At the time when I introduced this bill there was a concern from the legal side, the human rights side. I believe there were some concerns about the justice department, whether they had any concerns. As far as I know, the Minister of Justice has no problems with this bill. If I can quote Scott from the meeting in Vancouver, he supported that bill.
This bill would save money. It would save money by eliminating the double process. It would save over $50 million. I believe $50 million could be spent on poor and hungry children.
Mr. Dromisky: How is it, Madam Chairman, $50 million can be saved if we're going to be keeping these criminals - because they become criminals according to this act as soon as they are charged and processed - and we detain them for three or four or five years until we reach some kind of agreement with their mother country to receive them back as criminals? Is that where you're going to save the money, by getting them out of the jails faster and having them deported? Instead of being fifteen years in jail, they're only going to be four or five years in jail. Is that where the savings come in?
Mr. Peric: Absolutely. That's one way. The other way is to eliminate this second step from the immigration department. We wouldn't need that second hearing.
Mr. Dromisky: In light of the time factor and so forth and in light of this concern that was brought to our attention before in terms of the mother country of the criminal in question, even if a treaty is accepted, or if there is no treaty, do you think they would eagerly accept the return of a criminal who's committed a crime in Canada and then assume the responsibility of keeping that person in their own jail, covering the cost of the legal services and maintenance of that person as a prisoner in their mother country? Do you think the mother country would want to accept that costly responsibility?
.1605
Mr. Peric: Nobody accepts anything eagerly, especially problems.
Mr. Dromisky: I'm just wondering what kind of information you had.
Mr. Peric: Once we reach that agreement with that particular country, of course they would accept them.
Mr. Dromisky: If there was an agreement.
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Mr. Dromisky: This isn't only referring to the justice department. We have other departments or ministries that are also equally responsible and involved here. Some of those have been brought to your attention. You quoted the justice department. In the period of time that has passed, one whole year nearly, have you been in consultation with the other ministers?
Mr. Peric: I spoke to the Solicitor General. The process of deportation would be the same as it is today.
Mr. Dromisky: Do we have anything in writing from these ministers pertaining to the concerns that were raised one year ago as they reflect the interpretation and relationship to certain acts that are in existence within their ministries? Do you have anything in writing at all?
Mr. Peric: I don't have anything in writing, but I would recommend that you call them here to ask them that.
Mr. Dromisky: All right, that's a fair response.
Take Bill C-44. Do you feel it adequately covers some of the concerns you're raising or do you feel it won't do a good job?
Mr. Peric: There is an improvement, but it didn't go far enough.
Mr. Dromisky: It didn't go far enough in what respect, do you feel?
Mr. Peric: We still have a double system, and it's not fast enough. This bill would speed up the process and eliminate the second process.
Mr. Dromisky: The two main factors you're introducing are that it would be less costly and that it would speed up the entire process. I'm talking about your bill.
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Mr. Dromisky: Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Peric, I'm continually amazed by the initiative and dedication that goes into the sponsorship of these private member's bills, and I think you are to be congratulated.
I had a couple of questions.
Let's look at a scenario. A person is in Canada as a refugee and seeking landed immigrant status. Let's say they've been in Canada for six or seven years. Say they commit one of these crimes that you speak of in your bill. How would this bill then apply to them? Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Peric: It applies the same way as it would to any other legal landed immigrant, regardless how long they've been here. I know some people in my riding who have been here for 25 or 30 years who are still not citizens. That bill would affect them the same as anybody who has been here for 2 years.
Mr. Cullen: So as for someone who has been granted refugee status, you would then suggest that they would be deported back to their country?
Mr. Peric: Absolutely. They are still not a citizen. We are talking about non-citizens.
Mr. Cullen: Let's say someone's life was at risk by returning to their home country. Are you suggesting that they would be sent back to that same country?
Mr. Peric: No, in that case they would have to serve their full sentence here. Then they would have to apply for landed immigrant status. That's if we're talking about refugees.
Mr. Cullen: Refugees, yes.
Mr. Peric: I believe that under the current law they wouldn't get it. They would be deported.
Mr. Cullen: They would be deported.
Mr. Peric: Absolutely. That would be after they served their full sentence.
We are talking about refugees. In this bill, refugees or landed immigrants would be affected as non-citizens. So after they serve their sentence, they can go to their country. Or if we can't reach an agreement with that particular country and his or her life would be endangered, then of course they would have to serve their full time here. After that, they would be deported regardless.
Mr. Cullen: Could you tell me the 20 countries that have been referred to as those that have agreements with Canada now? Could you rattle off the list quickly for us?
.1610
Mr. Peric: Yes. I believe you have a copy. If you don't, I have copies. It's the United States, Mexico, Peru, France, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Bolivia, Cyprus, Austria...
Could we get copies of the list?
Mr. Cullen: Yes, maybe we could make copies.
The Chair: We can make copies.
Mr. Cullen: Okay, that would help.
I have one final question, Madam Chair, if I may. It's a follow-up on my colleague's question about Bill C-44. My interpretation of clause 5 of your bill is that there is an appeal mechanism to a deportation order under any provincial court of appeal.
Mr. Peric: The Criminal Code, yes.
Mr. Cullen: As I understand Bill C-44, serious criminals - criminals that are seen as dangerous to society - have no appeal rights. If they're ordered deported they have no appeal rights to the IRB under Bill C-44.
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Mr. Cullen: So on first blush it looks like this is softening that up a bit. How do you comment on that?
Mr. Peric: It's the same thing with my bill. They wouldn't have any rights to appeal under the Immigration Act, except under the Criminal Code.
Mr. Cullen: So if I'm ordered deported under your bill, I can appeal that. Can I appeal that to a provincial court of appeal?
Mr. Peric: He wouldn't be able to appeal the deportation, only the sentence.
Mr. Cullen: But as I read subclause 5, it says that under subclause 2 of your bill, which talks about deportation - you're saying there's a distinction between deportation and the length of the sentence.
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Mr. Cullen: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, you have five minutes.
Mr. Nunez: Some of the clauses in your bill appear to violate the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For instance, when offenders who are Canadian citizens are eligible for parole, statutory release or other permissions, they do not always have to serve their entire sentence.
According to your bill, non-citizens will have these obligations. In this sense, your bill will create two categories of individuals; those who are citizens and those who are not. According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnic origin. How can you explain that some of the clauses, particularly clause 8, violates the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter?
[English]
Mr. Peric: If this bill contradicts the Charter of Rights then the whole Immigration Act contradicts the Charter of Rights, because Canadian citizens have a right to vote and non-citizens don't. There are some rights that do not apply to non-citizens. They can't run for government office and they can't vote. So this bill is not implementing or inventing anything new. The present Immigration Act covers that.
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In certain circumstances, you say that there are differences between citizens and non-citizens, we can do this in criminal law as well, but this would be a bit more difficult to accept.
I have another question on subclause (5) which deals with the family. According to your bill, if we deport the perpetrator of a crime or offence, we may also send the spouse and eventually the children back as well. Once again, this is contrary to the purpose of the Immigration Act, which is family reunification.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Washington and I met the individual in charge of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. There are already seven complaints filed against Canada for violating family provisions of its current legislation.
In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights is paying a great deal of attention to everything concerning the family. However, according to your bill, the family may be deported at the same time as the perpetrator of a crime. The family is neither guilty nor responsible. Why would you also want to penalize the family of the offender?
[English]
Mr. Peric: Mr. Nunez, this Immigration Act provision is included at the present time, so I'm not inventing anything new.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of comments and then some clarifications. As I read the bill and think back to the existing legislation in various areas, there are different parts of this bill that seem to contradict existing legislation. We already have it in a number of areas, not to mention Bill C-44, but also the Young Offenders Act and a number of other areas.
Paragraph 7(b) of your bill talks about people who were here prior to age 16 not being subject to deportation, yet our current legislation states the opposite. That contradicts what we now have, so it doesn't matter how you square that.
The Young Offenders Act deals with situations in quite a different way. When you talk about entry you say where a person has applied under this act of entry into Canada, entry generally is given to people who come to Canada as visitors, and they're given permission to enter the country. I don't suppose you intend this legislation to apply only to lawful entries and not to anyone else. I could go on, but there seem to be a lot of contradictions between what you're suggesting and many other existing acts.
Another concern is that since we have a system where plea bargaining takes place, once this is passed, could it be bartered? If a lawyer knows there's a discussion going on... If this means deportation and we know this person is going to leave, maybe we can plead it down to two years, because that means the undue punishment for this individual more than anyone else, who, if given the same punishment, is likely not to be kicked out of the country... Is that a possible outcome if we don't control that part of the administration of the law?
Could you give me some feedback? While going through the bill, did you have thoughts as to how what you're recommending fit into the different pieces of legislation we already have in other areas, as well as how it might play out in the courts?
.1620
Paragraph 3(c) says:
- permit the convicted person to make representations to the court as to why such an order should
not be made.
- Currently, under Bill C-44 that's not even a possibility.
Finally, our punishment system for certain crimes doesn't square with other countries. While we may have reciprocal agreements with 20 countries, that doesn't mean that country will agree to give the exact punishment our courts meted out once that person is transferred. I have a lot of questions because I see a lot of interaction with all of our other other legislation. Could you comment on some of those?
Mr. Peric: Yes. The present system is not working, Ms Minna, and to amend the present bill we have to see where can we fix it, otherwise we would be duplicating it. We wouldn't achieve anything by doing that.
Your concerns are probably about judges dealing with this overlapping...federal cases, provincial courts. Where do you see overlapping?
Ms Minna: For instance, if you look at the young offenders area, it says ``any offence under the Criminal Code''. Is that intended to include convictions in youth court? These convictions under section 36 of the Young Offenders Act...that after completion of sentence, conviction is deemed not to have taken place when you're dealing with young people. Are you talking only about 16-years-olds and older?
Mr. Peric: I'm talking about criminals who came here. That would not affect anyone who came to Canada before age 16 and was clear of any crime for the last five years.
Ms Minna: That's contradicts even our current immigration law with respect to deportation. At the moment, if you came here at the age of five months and committed a crime, you're still subject -
Mr. Peric: You wouldn't deport them because they are part of Canadian society.
Ms Minna: Mr. Peric, you are forgetting the fact that there's another act that does deport them, and that's the Immigration Act. You say here that it shouldn't, yet we have other legislation that says they should.
I am not arguing whether they should or not; I'm simply suggesting that your bill overlaps with a number of other acts and doesn't square. In some cases it gives the ability to appeal certain cases, more so than would happen in the current immigration system. I think we're trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed, especially since Bill C-44 came in.
Mr. Peric: Who can say the present system is a perfect system? We know it's not working, so we have to fix it where we can.
Ms Minna: When you hand over the deportation powers from the immigration department, the minister, to a judge and a court, then you are subject to the vagaries of the courts - the plea bargaining and all kinds of other things that can happen. You may be losing more control than you think you're gaining - that is what I'm suggesting. It's just one element, and there are many others.
.1625
Mr. Peric: A perfect example is in what I am passing around. It is a chronology of Clinton Gayle. In 1977 he entered Canada as a landed immigrant. In 1991 a deportation order was issued under paragraph 27(1)(d) for criminal conviction. Then we go to 1992-94.
But before this, in the meantime, he killed a person, a human being. Do you know why, Madam Maria? The system didn't work. The immigration department didn't pay attention. At the present time we don't have an agreement with Jamaica, but the Jamaican authority is just waiting for him to appear there for deportation to Toronto.
The Chair: I'll come back. Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon. member, colleague, can you tell me whether your private member's bill was introduced into the House of Commons before Bill C-44 was introduced by the Minister of Immigration?
Mr. Peric: I can't remember the date when Bill C-44 was introduced.
The Chair: Mr. Peric's bill was tabled after Bill C-44.
Ms Meredith: So Bill C-44 had passed before Mr. Peric's motion was introduced?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Peric: It was under discussion.
Ms Meredith: I want to get clarification, because I believe some of my colleagues are confused about the criminals who would be brought under this private member's bill. You're talking about criminals who've committed serious crimes, not petty theft or break and enters but something they could get 10 years or more in prison for.
Mr Peric: Yes, I am talking about those who could get 10 years or more in prison.
Ms Meredith: So you're not talking about somebody who stole a car or what not.
Mr Peric: No.
Ms Meredith: I also want to clarify a comment made by a colleague across the table who said your bill is taking the powers from Immigration on deportation and handing it to a judge and a court. Is it your impression that Immigration is in control of deportation hearings and deportation? Or do you feel it is a semi-judicial body, the IRB, and not Citizenship and Immigration Canada that has control of enforcing deportations?
Mr. Peric: The crack is there. Whether the IRB or the immigration department is to blame, the crack is there. We have to fix this crack. We can accomplish this is by giving the power to the judge.
Ms Meredith: My question is whether it is Citizenship and Immigration in control of deportations or the Immigration and Refugee Board in control of deportations?
Mr. Peric: It's not the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is Citizenship and Immigration.
Ms Meredith: This is not my understanding. My understanding is that a person can appeal a deportation through the Immigration and Refugee Board, which makes the determination on whether to enforce or stay the deportation order.
Mr. Peric: If the appeal is refused, then there's a next step. The next step is deportation.
Ms Meredith: Then I would argue the control is merely being passed from a semi-judicial body, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to a court of law and a judge. Would you agree with this?
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Ms Meredith: So really it's not much of a change. It's just taking it into a different vehicle.
Mr. Peric: We're streaming it down to one system.
Ms Meredith: But this man says for anybody who commits a serious crime, Canada would, through the courts, make a determination that this individual has violated the conditions under which he or she was allowed into the country and therefore should be deported. We are talking about a crime that would get them 10 years or more, so it's a fairly serious crime. Is this basically the intent of this private member's bill?
Mr. Peric: Yes. It is to speed up the system and have one system in place instead of two.
.1630
Ms Meredith: So you're saying that through its courts and its legal system, Canada should be able to determine who is going to be allowed to stay in the country and become citizens of the country.
Mr. Peric: No. We're not talking about Canadian courts deciding who would be allowed to stay here. We're talking about serial criminals, foreign...
Ms Meredith: But basically, that's the determination being made. The Canadian courts are saying, you're charged and you're going to be convicted of this serious offence for which the conviction will net you up to or over ten years.
Mr. Peric: Ten years.
Ms Meredith: And in that determination, you're saying the judge then has the right to say, you're going to spend five years in Canadian jails, and upon release you're going to be deported back to your country of origin because you have violated the conditions upon which Canada accepted you.
Mr. Peric: Right on.
Ms Meredith: Is that a fair summation of what your bill is trying to accomplish?
Mr. Peric: I think it's more than fair.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: The other question that I just wanted to finish is about the section that deals with family. I'm not too clear on it. Do you mean that the judge can order the family deported with the convicted individual at the same time? Or is it an option for the family to leave or not to leave? Is it mandated?
Mr. Peric: What is the present system?
Ms Minna: The individual is deported, not necessarily the family. It's up to the family. They're not criminals. They haven't been convicted, so they can choose to stay or to leave.
Mr. Peric: Under the present system, if they are depending on that individual they are deported at the same time. If the family depends on that individual, they are deported when that individual is deported, so we are not changing anything here. Then it would be up to a judge.
Ms Minna: No. The woman who may be the wife may be a Canadian citizen. Or even if she is not a citizen she has not committed a crime.
Mr. Peric: If she's a Canadian citizen it wouldn't affect her.
Ms Minna: But even if she's not a citizen... The children and the wife, who may have been in Canada for fifteen or twenty years, have not committed a crime. Why are we punishing them as well?
Mr. Peric: It would be within the provision of the Canadian courts to decide if they are going to deport the family or not, but if they are involved... That's why we have that flexibility here. If a family is involved, and if they didn't commit the crime that particular criminal did, it would be up to the judge to deport them or to let them stay here.
Ms Minna: I'm not even sure why it's up to the judge. If these people are innocent, if they have done nothing, why are we punishing them along with the criminal?
Mr. Peric: I'm not talking about innocent people. I'm talking about criminals and -
Ms Minna: Their families are not criminals, though.
Mr. Peric: No. Absolutely not. But let's say there's a case where they are involved, where they were aware of the crime -
Ms Minna: They'd have to be convicted of a crime, otherwise... We don't judge people by... I'm just trying to clarify this scenario. It's not clear to me. That's all, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, have you any further questions?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. Subclause (5) clearly states that the court can order that all dependents of the offender be sent back. This is not the case right now.
I would like to ask you a question about the transfer of foreign offenders. I do not think that this is a bad provision. I agree with the treaty signed by Canada and twenty other countries when an application is made by the offender. As the Immigration critic, several cases have been drawn to my attention about Canadians in foreign prisons who are asking that they be allowed to come back and serve their sentence in our prisons.
.1635
This is currently allowed and I don't see what this bill has added. There are treaties, and, moreover, I would like that there be even more treaties so that we can transfer offenders, particularly Canadians who have been convicted abroad. Does your bill add anything else?
[English]
Mr. Peric: Mr. Nunez, this bill is talking about the process - speeding up the process and having one system in place instead of two. If in Bill C-44 there are changes and if you see that in this bill there are duplications, I'm flexible about talking about amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I would like to ask you a question about humanitarian grounds. Right now it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who makes decisions based on humanitarians grounds. With this government, the Minister does not use this power very often, in my opinion. According to your bill, these cases will be decided by the courts, and this concerns me a great deal because the judges are not adequately prepared to deal with problems jeopardizing peoples' lives or, in the case of refugees, to know whether or not they come from a country where there is a risk. Finally, the ordinary courts are not prepared to deal with the specific problems facing refugees. What do you think about this?
[English]
Mr. Peric: Mr. Nunez, I shouldn't say I'm shocked. You and I came to this country. I never hear you asking questions about how the families of the victims are. Your heart is bleeding for the criminals. We're talking about serial criminals who commit the crime and who are sentenced for ten more years. We're talking about killers. We're not talking about thieves. Now we suddenly worry about their luxurious prison cells here in Canada or somewhere else.
Mr. Nunez, they have to think twice before they commit the crime. This country opened its heart to you, to me, to every other newcomer. Would you agree with me?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I must tell you that I am very concerned about the victims. In my introduction, I said that we all condemned the two murders committed in Toronto.
[English]
Mr. Peric: But is condemning enough?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: All criminals, regardless of whether they are born here or elsewhere, must abide by the same Criminal Code, the same laws. There is no difference. The only thing that you want to do is to send them back to their country of origin instead of having them serving their sentence here. Being incarcerated in a penitentiary here already constitutes adequate punishment, in my opinion.
Your bill takes away some of the authority of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Once again, I must tell you that the IRB is a specialized tribunal. These people are knowledgeable about the situation and problems facing immigrants and refugees, whereas ordinary judges do no know very much about these situations and this reality. Transferring some of the IRB's jurisdiction to the ordinary court system will not resolve any problem.
.1640
You will be aggravating rather than resolving the problem. I believe someone said that these proceedings took some time at the IRB, but it must be said that if such matters were brought before the ordinary courts, it would take even more time. Indeed, it takes anywhere from five to ten years to get a ruling on cases before the Supreme Court. It therefore takes much too long and costs taxpayers far too much money than a case that is heard by a specialized tribunal such as the IRB.
[English]
Mr. Peric: Mr. Nunez, I hear from your comment a statement where you say Canadian judges are not qualified enough, they are not able to read the legislation.
Mr. Nunez: I didn't say that.
Mr. Peric: You said I am taking power from qualified refugee board members and giving them to Canadian judges. Let me tell you something. Don't underestimate Canadian judges. Provincial judges are dealing 90% with federal cases, for instance gun control. So I have no problem giving power to Canadian judges.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky: I'd like to continue in the line of thinking about transferring these judicial responsibilities from the IRB, which would make the decision. Technically, the deportation powers would have to be passed on to the provincial level, as you pointed out, to the provincial judges, provincial solicitor generals, and so forth. That would require some period of adjustment. Have you considered this very serious concern, that some form of professional development has to be taking place for the provincial judges and solicitor generals dealing with these federal issues pertaining to immigration - the Immigration Act and everything else? There has to be a period of training. There has to be a period of adjustment in terms of thinking and how to deal with these convicted...well, these criminals, in a sense, from another level, to the level at which the judges and solicitors general are operating. Have you looked at that possibility?
Mr. Peric: Yes. All it would take is for provincial judges to read legislation, with no special training needed, just to read the legislation. And they can read.
Mr. Dromisky: So you have the faith that they'll be able to make that kind of adjustment.
Mr. Peric: Absolutely.
Mr. Dromisky: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen will have the last question.
Mr. Cullen: I would like to pick up on the earlier discussion about concern for victims as opposed to concern for criminals. I don't think many would argue - certainly I wouldn't - about the need to address the Clinton Gayle kind of situation, and many others, but I'm wondering if this is the instrument that's needed. With the benefit of hindsight, as often we have when people commit crimes like this, I wonder if things might have been done differently administratively or judicially, perhaps.
But to come back to the point about someone who has refugee status, if they're convicted here in Canada for a crime, that's ten years. And we know that if they're sent back to the country where they came from - and let's say the facts are fairly clear - that they would be subject to certain death or torture or whatever, what you're saying is that even though you know a ten-year sentence is prescribed here, we're sending them back to a sentence that's beyond that. Is that a fair thing to do? Let's look at the balance between victim rights and criminal rights. Is it really fair to do that?
.1645
Mr. Peric: It wouldn't be fair to deport the ordinary person. But what is fair? Is it fair that somebody takes a life away from somebody else and you don't take that life by accident, you plan, you're consciously aware? We're talking about criminals. We're not talking about people who drive a car and cause an accident and kill a person. We're not talking about that kind of person. We're talking about serious criminals. So let me tell you that my heart, and I believe the majority of Canadians' hearts, are not bleeding for them.
Mr. Cullen: But if we're talking about crimes punishable by ten years or more, you're not necessarily talking just about murder.
Mr. Peric: Well, criminals; and that's even -
Mr. Cullen: Serious criminals, sure.
Mr. Peric: Yes, serious criminals. So how -
Mr. Cullen: But if we believe in capital punishment for armed robbery or whatever, then why don't you propose that legislation? That would accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Peric: If somebody proposed that legislation in the future, then we would deal with that legislation. We're dealing with the deportation issue right now for serious offenders.
The Chair: Ms Meredith, you asked for the last word.
Ms Meredith: I would suggest if there is any reason for me to support this legislation, this private member's bill, the fact that we would be transferring jurisdiction from the IRB to a court in itself is enough to convince me to support this. Any suggestion that a judge in our court system would be any less able to come up with a proper decision I think is undermining our justice system. As much as I think it needs some change, some reform, I would suggest to you that the members of the IRB are far more biased. They are trained, and there is a culture there, to take the side of the refugee. Many of them were refugee lawyers or members of an advocacy group before sitting on the IRB.
I think if you had a court outside of that culture making these kinds of decisions you would get a much fairer decision. You would get a decision based on the best interests of Canada and Canadians rather than of the individual criminal. I would suggest to you that in itself is enough reason for me to support this private member's bill in its attempt to amend the present legislation.
I don't see any conflict or any duplication, because what your private member's bill is suggesting is to amend the Immigration Act - not to run contrary to it but to amend it. So the Immigration Act would then read that to protect Canadians from serious criminals there would be a clarity, a certainty, in sentencing, that after they spent x years in a Canadian prison they would be deported. Canada would no longer want them, because they have shown by their behaviour that they would not make good Canadian citizens.
I think this bill warrants support, and it surprises me there isn't more support for this legislation from the government side.
The Chair: I thought I'd comment, Ms Meredith, that no one has said there is no support on the government side. We haven't made a decision today. We were here to hear the proposal of the legislation. I'd like to put that on the record.
I have two questions for Mr. Peric, just to clarify something that did come up during the discussions.
You have two clauses in your bill, Mr. Peric. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with two separate categories of offenders. I just want to put that down because I think there was a little confusion, at least when I was listening to the discussions.
One deals with offenders who are sentenced right away to ten years or more and will immediately be deported. The second is for the transfer of offenders who are serving a term of imprisonment in Canada of ten years or more. One is less than ten years, the other is... Are you expecting different treatment for those two categories? Please clarify that.
.1650
Mr. Peric: No. The bill is proposing an amendment to deport foreign serious offenders who commit a crime punishable by ten or more years. We're not talking about criminals who commit a crime punishable by less than ten years. We're talking about one particular kind of criminal who commits crimes punishable by ten or more years.
There might be confusion...this bill wouldn't affect those who came here before the age of 16 and have been clear of the commission of any crime in the last five years. In my opinion, they are products of Canadian society and they should be treated as Canadians, not as foreign offenders.
The Chair: If we read your definition, which is in the beginning, we talked about new section 32.1. New subsection 32.1(1) reads:
- 32.1 (1) In this section and in paragraph 3(f.1) ``serious criminal offence'' means any offence
under the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament for which a person, if convicted, may
be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years or more.
I'd like to end it here, if I may, unless Mr. Dromisky...
Mr. Dromisky: No, I just wanted to make a kind of a rebuttal here in this part of the debate regarding the comments that have been made on the sincerity of the debate on our side -
The Chair: I'd like to have the debate in the House of Commons and not in the committee, if I may.
Mr. Dromisky: All right.
The Chair: We'll have the opportunity in the House of Commons.
I want to thank Mr. Peric for coming before the committee, and I thank all the members.
Please take note, members, that tomorrow's meeting will be in this room with the minister, not at the Promenade as was scheduled. It will be right here at 3:30 p.m.
We are adjourned. Thank you very much.