Mr. Chair, I'm glad I heard that exchange. Everything's as clear as mud right now.
I'm having difficulty with this amendment, so therefore I can't support it. I believe it lacks clarity. It also puts in a minimum sentence, even for people for whom it was totally unintentional. It says that if it was totally not their intention, they must be excluded for a period of two years. It takes away the kind of discretion I was told the officers have right now occasionally. If they were doing it out of fear for their life, or if they just had a senior moment, but it didn't make them a threat to the country or anything and didn't really change any of those things, then I don't see why they would be excluded for two years. That's why I'm finding it difficult to support this.
I could support the second half. Three years is obviously better than five years, but combined, noting that it lacks clarity, it's very difficult to support the current wording. I do want to give my colleague credit for his intentions of what he wanted to do, but I don't feel it's clear to me and it's not as explicit as I would like to see it in wording.