Mr. Speaker, in spite of the explanations provided by the minister, I think it is important to reiterate the objectives of the motions to which the hon. member for Bourassa referred earlier.
The purpose of Motions Nos. 13 and 14 tabled by the Bloc Quebecois to amend Bill C-44 is twofold. Motion No. 14 would add two categories of individuals to the list of those who cannot be deported for criminal behaviour. Motion No. 13 would amend Bill C-44 to take into account the seriousness of the crimes committed and the sentences actually handed down to permanent residents.
Let us first look at Motion No. 14. Paragraph ( a ) seeks to exclude from the deportation process persons who were admitted to permanent residence in Canada before attaining the age of ten years, where it is demonstrated that the persons have no emotional, family or other ties to their country of origin.
Some permanent residents arrived in Canada as children. For all sorts of reasons, these people never sought to obtain Canadian citizenship. Now, they are adults and work here; they also have a family here, but no longer in their country of origin. These people are, in essence, Canadians or Quebecers. We think that sending them back to their country of origin makes no sense and is inhumane.
These people grew up in Canada and developed their talents, as well as their flaws, here. They are a product of Canadian society. It would be too easy to get rid of criminals by sending them back to their country of origin, which they left as young children. Moreover, deportation could be too harsh a sentence for the offence committed. Not only would these people have to serve a sentence for their crime or crimes, but they would also have to keep living abroad afterwards, far from their family and friends, in a country which is often foreign to them.
Second, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing an amendment to paragraph ( b ) so that permanent residents who have resided in Canada for ten years or more cannot be removed from Canada. This addition is similar to the other amendments and would make Bill C-44 more compassionate for people who have been in Canada for a long time.
By adopting this amendment from the Bloc Quebecois, Canada would not be the first country to act this way. For example, Australia which is often compared to Canada because of its British tradition and liberal immigration policies, already has legislation in this area. Hence, children who settled in Australia before they were ten years old cannot be sent back to their country of origin.
France's immigration policy is reputed to be much more restrictive than ours. However, it has passed legislation to prevent immigrants who have been permanent residents for more than ten years from being expelled.
The government must go beyond partisanship and go along with the Bloc. For compassionate and humanitarian considerations, we must amend Bill C-44 and pass Motion No. 14.
We must also amend the bill by adopting Motion No. 13. To determine the seriousness of the crime, the actual sentence must be taken into consideration, and not only the maximum penalty for a particular type of offence.
In its current form, Bill C-44 only takes into account the nominal sentence, that is the maximum penalty for the type of offence committed, and not the sentence imposed by the judge. Indeed, even though under the Criminal Code a term of imprisonment of ten years may be imposed for a particular offence, the principles of sentencing are applied by the courts in determining the sentence.
For example, a person convicted of breaking into a private residence can receive a life sentence. Offences such as aiding and abetting the issuance of fraudulent credit cards are punishable by a ten-year sentence and could justify the deportation of the accused.
In our legal system, sentences are generally much less severe than the maximum sentence. In some cases, it may not be a term of imprisonment or a fine, but only a suspended sentence, probation or community work. A person could therefore receive a very light sentence and still be forced to leave the country.
Moreover, if our amendment is not adopted, this provision of Bill C-44 could violate the Geneva Convention. The manual of High Commissioner for Refugees says, and I quote: "With regard to the nature of the crime presumed to have been committed, all relevant factors, including extenuating circumstances, must be considered".
Bill C-44 must reflect these remarks. We must adopt the amendment before us to avoid legal complications. The Canadian government cannot refuse to take into account the actual sentence imposed, which is indicative of the seriousness of the crime.
As for the sentence of two years less one day, everybody knows that it is the cut-off point for sentences served in a provincial penitentiary and those served in a federal institution. In Canada, the courts consider the nature of the crime before imposing a term of imprisonment of two years or more. In our legal system, there is a clear difference between a sentence of two years or more and a sentence of less than two years in terms
of the seriousness of the crime. Our amendment reflects this legal reality.
I encourage all members to vote in favour of Motions No. 13 and 14 for simple common sense reasons. As we have just seen, the purpose of Motion No. 13 is to take into account the actual sentence imposed by the judge and not only the maximum sentence of ten years for certain types of crimes. As for Motion No. 14, it is designed to prevent the deportation of de facto Canadians.