Thank you, Chair.
I move that Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 16 the following new clause:
35.1 (1) Paragraphs 36(1)(a) to (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment;
or
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment.
(2) Subsection 36(2) of the Act is repealed.
Chair, briefly, my rationale for this amendment is as follows.
The stated intent and purpose of Bill C-12 is ostensibly to protect Canada's borders as well as to reform the immigration process. However, it lacks substance around the definition of serious criminality in IRPA, where we've seen many non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes issued sentences that are essentially lower than what is stated in IRPA in order to avoid inadmissibility or deportation consequences.
We feel that if this were accepted, it would reduce the incentives for people to abuse the immigration system. It would also restore some of the value of Canadian citizenship. I think it's something that a lot of Canadians across the political divide would like to see. There are many instances in news stories over the last year in particular of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes avoiding deportation due to some of the wording in IRPA.
We feel an indictable offence or a hybrid offence where an indictable charge is proceeded with by the Crown constitutes a serious crime. The six-month provision in IRPA is being gamed, if you will, by the judicial system in order to avoid the spirit of the law.
An indictable offence, as my colleagues know, covers a lot of very serious crimes, and I think the spirit of IRPA in this clause and the inadmissibility provisions are designed essentially to ensure that people who come to Canada as non-citizens understand that there are responsibilities as well as rights that are associated with being in Canada. A bare minimum of that is upholding the law.
We want some clarity. We feel this would improve the bill, strengthen Canada's immigration system and, hopefully, also restore some of the lost consensus in Canada's immigration system.
It's a common-sense amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.