Much has been said about clause 24 at this committee as it redefines “serious criminality” to crimes punishable “by a term of imprisonment of at least six months”, which has the effect of precluding access to an appeal. Many witnesses raised serious concerns about the types of crimes that could fall into this new definition.
We know there is a major difference of opinion around this table and among the witnesses we heard about what constitutes a serious crime. I don't want to rehash that debate here at any length. Our major concern is that this clause limits due process for permanent Canadian residents, many who have been here their whole life and know nothing about the culture or language of the countries they would be deported to.
On the weekend the Ottawa Citizen ran a piece called “Canada's new exiles”. It details the case of a young Somali man being deported to Mogadishu, one of the most violent and dangerous places on earth, this despite having no connection to that troubled country. The piece goes on to point out, as many of our witnesses did, that it is not uncommon for immigrants and refugees who arrive as children to assume they are citizens, who never put their minds to the question until the government moves to deport them.
With all of this in mind, I am moving an amendment that seeks to mitigate some of the worst effects of this clause. It does two important things, which I will address separately.
First, we make a very modest proposal that we exempt conditional sentences from the terms of imprisonment, thereby ensuring that convictions that are not as serious as more egregious crimes, as is the case with conditional sentencing, do not get caught by this provision. This was a suggestion made by the Canadian Bar Association and others during their testimony.
In fact, the national president of the Canadian Somali Congress said to this committee last week, “We should definitely make an exception between conditional sentences and jail. In it's current form, the Bill does not do that. So you can have a situation where a permanent resident facing jail time may be sentenced by a judge in the community's interest to conditional sentences due to the fact that that person is gainfully employed. But because of the nature of conditional sentences, conditional sentences take longer to fulfill by their very nature. But ironically, that would actually lead to the capture of this person with this legislation because it would exceed six months.”
The second thing this amendment does is it seeks to restore access to an appeal for those convicted of crimes outside Canada or for those who have committed acts outside Canada. We believe it is the immigration appeal division that is the appropriate body to properly evaluate those cases. We know that in many countries simply being a member of an opposition political party can get you charged and convicted of a serious crime. Due process to evaluate these cases is essential in a free and democratic country like Canada.
I would ask members to seriously consider this modest amendment to clause 24. While we oppose the principle of denying due process, we believe this amendment significantly moderates clause 24.