moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-44, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 21, on page 11, with the following:
"years or more may be imposed and the person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and the".
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-44, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 11, the following new section:
"12.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 53(1):
"(1.1) Paragraphs (1)( a ) to ( d ) do not apply to a person a ) who was admitted to permanent residence in Canada before attaining the age of ten years where it is demonstrated that the person has no emotional or other ties to the country to which it is proposed the person be removed, or b ) who has been admitted to permanent residence in Canada and has resided in Canada for ten years or more since being admitted.''.''
Mr. Speaker, the second group of motions being debated concerns the deportation of permanent residents who have been convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of ten years or more may be imposed. Clause 12 of Bill C-44 describes the circumstances under which convention refugees may be removed.
The bill provides that any person who has been convicted of an offence under any act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more may be imposed may be sent back to his or her country of origin. Maximum terms of ten years or more are handed out for offences, many of which are listed in the Criminal Code, such as use of a forged passport, theft exceeding $1,000, unauthorized use of a computer, counterfeiting stamps, and so on.
Clause 12 does not differentiate between serious or major crimes and minor crimes that have no serious consequences for Canadian society. In other words, the bill does not take into account the actual duration of the sentence imposed on an individual for a given offence. This amendment will prevent potential injustices that would result from the application of this provision.
Our amendment will prevent individuals who committed minor offences from being sent back to their country of origin. It ensures that the bill recognizes the seriousness of the offences in question and the actual duration of the sentence imposed on permanent residents convicted of offences considered serious.
We think that the maximum sentence should be reduced from ten years to two and that only the actual duration instead of the maximum sentence should count.
Our second amendment to this clause is to prevent the deportation of permanent residents who have resided in Canada for a long time.
As it stands, the bill does not provide any protection to permanent residents established in Canada for a long time who, therefore, have little or no emotional ties to their country of origin. This is presently the case of many people in Canada.
Let us not forget that there are many people in Canada who have been living here for many years without having acquired Canadian citizenship. Some residents do not want to lose their original citizenship while others are not even aware that they are not Canadian citizens because they were admitted to Canada when very young.
Our amendments will protect these people's most fundamental rights. As a result, those admitted to permanent residence in Canada before attaining the age of 10 years and those who have resided in Canada for 10 years or more are exempted from this section.
Unfortunately, the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration did not take into consideration the numerous contributions and recommendations proposed by the organizations and individuals who appeared before the committee. They were very concerned about this situation, and we deplore the fact that although this majority on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration invited organizations and individuals from across Canada, the committee and the Liberal majority did not take into consideration their very worthwhile contributions to the committee's discussions.
Many of the briefs, particularly the one from the Quebec immigration lawyers' association, suggest creating a non-deportable class. Our amendments, in this motion, reflect this concern which we share entirely.
We also tabled this amendment because of family considerations. You may have heard of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a European Commission of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that deportation orders interfere with the law and with respect for family life under section 8 of the convention, arguing that it must be demonstrated that government decisions likely to restrict family rights are necessary in a democratic society, that is, justified by a very sound social need, and that these restrictions must be proportional to the legitimate objective sought.
We think that this provision of Bill C-44 goes against all the precedents established by the European Court of Human Rights.
Canada contracted obligations that are largely similar to the European Convention on Human Rights when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada has always maintained that sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter protect the rights of families.
In April 1994, we received a report from Waldman and Davis called "The Quality of Mercy". This bill in general and especially the provisions concerning individuals punishable by a jail term of ten years or more are not at all in keeping with this quality of mercy or with the legal precedents established in other countries. On the contrary, it violates existing provisions that have been accepted in other democratic societies. I do not think that the bill reflects the quality of mercy suggested in the report by Waldman and Davis.