assistance of counsel, is essential to understanding this alleged
error and its determination.
The plea proceedings
 When the appellant entered his pleas of guilty, he was
represented by counsel who had appeared on his behalf
throughout these proceedings and had acted for him in a prior
unrelated prosecution in another jurisdiction. Counsel had
participated in resolution discussions with the Crown as well
as pre-hearing conferences with the judge before whom the
appellant pleaded guilty.
 When the appellant was arraigned and entered his pleas of
guilty, the presiding judge did not conduct a plea inquiry in
accordance with s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985,
c. C-46. Defence counsel indicated that he had conducted a plea
inquiry with the appellant and was satisfied that the appellant
was familiar with the allegations made against him and wanted
to plead guilty to the counts on which he would be arraigned.
Defence counsel informed the judge that there would be a joint
submission on sentence and that the appellant understood
that the judge did not have to impose the sentence counsel
 The appellant indicated that he was prepared to proceed in
accordance with what defence counsel had said.
 None of the participants inquired or said anything about
the appellant’s immigration status in advance of entering the
guilty pleas. During sentencing submissions, defence counsel told
the trial judge that someone from Immigration had visited the
appellant and told him that he was to report to Immigration on
his release from custody after completing his sentence.
 No one asked anything about the appellant’s immigration
status after defence counsel’s mention of it during submissions.
The appellant said nothing about immigration in his allocution.
The further evidence
 In his affidavit filed in support of his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim, the appellant acknowledged the visit of the
Immigration Enforcement Officer and the officer’s instructions
that he report to the Immigration Office on his release from cus-
tody. He told trial counsel about this visit. The lawyer never told
him that he should contact an immigration lawyer, or that he
would be deported after he had served his sentence and would not
be able to appeal the deportation order. The appellant claimed
that he never expected that his imminent removal from Canada
would occur as a result of his guilty plea.