Mr. Speaker, two motions are trying to do two different things. I will take them one at a time.
The toughest decision with respect to Bill C-44 was to try to respond as best we could as a government to public concern. In trying to size it up correctly the public is very much in favour of newcomers coming to this country and joining in the building of this very exciting place called Canada. That has been part of our country's history and should remain part of the nation building exercise for many years to come.
The public has concern when there is no sense of balance. An overwhelming number of people come here as immigrants and refugees and play things by the book. They contribute. They sacrifice. They bleed just like anybody else. Then there are the few who come to Canada with very different intentions. They break the law in a serious way and then flaunt it through the system. That is what irks Canadians.
As the minister and a member of Parliament and as a Canadian, what I heard the public request was to try to have a proper context and balance. In that way we could address those who seriously and flagrantly abuse the system and make it worse for those who come to this country and respect the law. Regrettably because perceptions cut very deeply sometimes everyone is unfairly put in the same boat.
We try to zero in on the problem. It is difficult for any law to try to distinguish that. The bill deals with those individuals who have committed a crime punishable by 10 years or more and who also, I underline the word also, receive a certificate that they are deemed to be a public danger according to the four general categories of serious violence, sexual assault, weapons charges, and drugs. Those individuals and not others will not be given the opportunity of appealing their deportation to the immigration appeal division on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It was the decision that those individuals, that narrow class, not be given the opportunity of going to the immigration appeal division but instead to make a written request for a written decision by officials in my department.
I hear what the Bloc and other members have said. When an immigration appeal division makes a decision on one of these individuals to stay the deportation or simply to overrule the deportation and it causes some consternation among the public, I wear the problem. If I were to tell the immigration appeal division what to do, members on the opposite side would be screaming for my resignation as they did for weeks on end respecting the CRTC. They have suggested that there needs to be an arm's length independence from our quasi-judicial boards. I concur with that.
In the end we are caught in the middle as public policy makers. We are blamed for decisions we did not take and we would be blamed if we sought to interfere in decisions.
The government and I chose to signal that category of individuals. They would no longer have the right on humanitarian and compassionate grounds before the immigration appeal division but would have the opportunity on a written decision with the department. They may appeal it to the Federal Court as in all cases.
Some people are suggesting that I will not only be wearing it but will be owning the problem. As a public policy maker and given the public feeling there was a need for greater consistency in decision making and a greater sense of accountability for decision making. I am prepared to take the risk of being seen to be owning the problem if it renders a more efficient system, there is a check and balance, the legislation is pinpointed to those who seriously commit criminal acts in the country, and there is a fair balance between the compassion and the generosity of Canada to invite newcomers to have a second lease on life.
There are those who seriously undermine our laws and are not citizens of the country of Canada. This country and this government do not preclude people from becoming citizens. We are a progressive country. After three years an individual can become a member of the most prestigious club the world over. It is called the Canadian family. For the narrow category that have tipped the scales there needs to be a price and a cost. That is what we are doing in clause 13 of Bill C-44.
The second motion that the Bloc suggests is that the government should not be able to appeal a decision of an immigration appeal division to turn a deportation order into a departure notice.
Let me explain why I believe the government should be able to appeal. It is not to politically intervene as my friend in the Bloc suggested. In a number of cases where the department has sought to deport a serious criminal the immigration appeal division has changed it from a deportation to a departure notice. There is a big difference between the two. Under a departure notice individuals would have to leave the country but are entitled to return. Under a deportation order persons are deported and cannot come into the country unless they have prior written consent from the minister.
Bill C-44 would allow a senior immigration officer, if a person was deported and returns without written permission, rather than going through an inquiry that can sometimes be lengthy-