Mr. Speaker, I suppose during third reading we will be able to debate the whole question of the position of the Reform Party. It is supporting the intent of the bill in many clauses but voting against it because there is an assumption or preposition that somehow the intent will not be realized. That is probably better suited for third reading debate.
I will address the two motions under the second group. They would seek to change clause 12 of Bill C-44. It is unfair to suggest, as the Bloc critic has done, that the committee was
blind or deaf to a number of the representations made with respect to clause 12. There was introduced at committee stage an amendment that would seek to clarify the intent and the purpose of Bill C-44.
Clause 12 suggests the following: When there are execution or removal orders against certain residents who have committed certain crimes, we are trying to suggest that individuals who have committed the crime may be punishable by 10 years or more as well as having received a certificate from the minister or his or her designate based on the seriousness of the crime.
When you get a certificate essentially there are four categories to that crime, either the violence of the crime, crimes related to sexual assault, crimes related to weapons charges and crimes related to drug peddling and the importation of drugs. When a certificate is given to an individual for those serious crimes that are punishable by 10 years or more we are suggesting not only that we have the ability to remove an individual but to also remove the humanitarian and compassionate grounds from the IAB and move that over to the department.
The Bloc amendment would amend that thinking to individuals who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years or more. The effect of that amendment would restrict the government's ability to remove those individuals and would push more of the emphasis to our courts. I think it has to be stated quite openly that many individuals who have committed a crime punishable by 10 years or more in the end receive much less than the two years which is the threshold being suggested by my hon. friend in the Bloc.
I think we should try to keep the focus on immigration as opposed to moving it squarely over to the court system. A number of decisions for a variety of reasons such as plea bargaining or keeping the person in a provincial prison would assume less than two years rather than two years or more because that is the threshold at which time the person would be in a federal penitentiary, are reasons why the judge may say less than two years so that the person may be kept at a provincial penitentiary for a variety of reasons. There are other concerns that the court system may recognize that do not account for immigration concerns.
The amendment would not only lessen the threshold to a very low threshold, which I think is unfair if the person has committed a serious crime and has been certificated as being a danger to the public based on those four categories, but it would also shift the onus of these individuals on to the court system which I think would be a mistake and which would render immigration arguments certainly secondary to other arguments that the judge may feel quite legitimate nonetheless. I believe that it would be a mistake on our part if we were to support Motion No. 13.
The second amendment would try to amend the same clause and try to define in law who may be deported or who may not. The Bloc has suggested that permanent residents before the age of 10 and who have no ties to their country of origin not be subject to deportation. They also say that anyone who has been a permanent resident for over 10 years, regardless of the crime, may not be deported.
I have difficulty with this on two fronts. First, when the Bloc suggests a person before the age 10, why 10? What if the person were nine or eleven or twelve? It is arbitrary. To put arbitrarily arrived at figures in law I would suggest is very restrictive. I do not think it would be the appropriate thing to do. I do not know how the Bloc arrived at the age of 10, but I do not think we should have laws that restrict our ability to remove individuals who face serious crimes based on an arbitrary figure or individuals who have been here more than 10 years.
The Bloc is saying if you are here more than 10 years you are considered perhaps to be more of a citizen. What if an individual clocks in at nine years in this country?
Is the Bloc therefore agreeing that regardless of the crime the person who spent nine years is not worthy of that compassionate consideration, but someone who stayed here an extra 12 months would be? I think that is the area that is going to constitute many problems if we put those arbitrary figures into legislation.
I think it would be more appropriate that those kinds of considerations be dealt with under humanitarian and compassionate reasoning where there is the flexibility to concern ourselves with rather than writing it into law.
Second, and fundamentally flawed, is the thinking that somehow the years of residence in one's country at all times, if we accept this amendment, outweighs the seriousness of the crime. I do not think we should accept that kind of reasoning. What I think Canadians are saying is that we are trying to seek an equitable balance.
We are not saying that immigration equals criminality, for goodness sake. We are not saying that. We are saying that there are the few who make it difficult for the many, and that we have to zero in on the few so that we can protect the many, and zero in on the few so that we can protect the integrity of the system.
If we accept the amendments of the Bloc, then we are saying that according to the arbitrary figure of 10, that supersedes any criminal activity in this country. Instead, I believe it is the reverse. There are certain crimes that are absolutely repugnant. If the landed resident was here 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, it still does not give that person the right to simply dismiss a serious crime against young children, or murder, or an aggravated sexual assault that turns people's stomachs. We should not simply rest on the case that just because the person has been here
for 10 years that the crime is all of a sudden forgotten. We have to stand up for certain values and send certain signals.
That is where I think putting the arbitrary figure of 10 into law creates more problems than it solves. I believe that those considerations should be under humanitarian and compassionate grounds and not the letter of the law.