Yes, Liberals fire people like that. We thank them.
In the sentencing the judge says this. This is a first. "In view of the elite circumstances surrounding this offence and the reasonable and realistic fears of the victim relating to possible actions of the accused upon his release, deportation be effective prior to the accused's release from prison to protect this and any other victim".
That really does not happen in the courts today and we made the point of saying: "We have to get this guy out". He actually had deportation orders twice before he sexually assaulted Joan. That is kind of sad.
A letter from Joan to the hon. minister says that she was the assault victim. Let me give a couple of words from her letter: "He has a long criminal record and has spent 14 of his past 22 years or so behind bars in Canada". It was 22 years. "As a taxpayer I find this intolerable. Many years ago I became a landed immigrant in the United States in order to be able to work there while my husband was attending university. I can recall that the American immigration authorities made it abundantly clear to us that if either of us committed a criminal act or became a charge on the state in any way we would be immediately deported".
What does that say for Canada? What does that say for Bill C-44?
Joan wrote again to the minister: "I have not had any response to my letter of September 30". That is not all that uncommon. "One statement your assistant made struck me as being quite absurd. I asked her what Canada's position would be vis-à-vis the Czech republic if the Czechs refused to take back Mr. Kral. In other words, how does Canada retaliate? Your assistant said that she could not answer that and that I should call the foreign office. I said surely your department is in touch with the foreign office on this matter, and she indicated that she could not answer this".
By the way, she said in her letter: "Mr. Kral's GST refund cheque came back to our address recently. Is he allowed to receive this while he is in prison?". Just ask this group across the way.
There is a letter here from the minister which reads: "The Hon. Sergio Marchi, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, asked that I respond to your transmissions of September and October. While we appreciate your interest in this matter Canada's Privacy Act prohibits us from releasing information on an individual's case without his or her written consent".
Can you imagine good old Kral saying "Give it to them. They want to move me out of the country".
The letter continued: "As a result I am unable to discuss the details of Mr. Kral's situation, other than to confirm that he was made the subject of a deportation order some time ago and to say that the order will be carried out in due course".
That is a load of hogwash because it has not been done.
I wrote to the chief crown prosecutor because I was trying to find out what Kral was all about, to see how bad he was. I wrote to her, Wendy Young, and I said that I found it incomprehensible that an MP is not allowed access to the public decisions of our country's courts and that neither her office nor the RCMP nor the Matsqui police would provide the criminal record of Mr. Kral.
The answer was predictable: "The disclosure of criminal records is governed by either the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the federal Privacy Act which limit the circumstances in which such records can be disclosed and provided for the method of making requests for such information. It would be a breach of law to furnish you with Mr. Kral's record".
It is really interesting how on the one hand they come up with all of these nice rules to remove people but in the final analysis they are not going to do it.
I got a letter from the manager of hearings and appeals. I do not think this was the guy who was promoted, since he bungled up José Mendoza's problem, but it is one of them. The letter read: "As you have observed, Mr. Kral was ordered deported on March 29, 1994 as a consequence of a lengthy criminal record. We intend to remove Mr. Kral to the country of his formal nationality as soon as possible. However", and this is the critical aspect, "he must first obtain a travel document". We will not get that because Czechoslovakia will say: "Why do we want this guy back? You keep him". All of the frills up front on this thing are just rhetoric. You know it will not work and the minister knows it will not work.
Let us talk about Inthavong Bounjan. This fellow came to us from Thailand at the age of 14 as a landed immigrant. He has not had a bad record, mischief, theft under $1,000, assault with a weapon, failure to comply with a disposition as a young offender. I believe he is 23 now.
Good old Inthavong at a shopping centre beat young Kirby Martin over the head with a bat in front of 100 witnesses until he was laying on the street.
This guy was supposed to get five years. He got out in less than three. He is on the streets. He had a deportation order. The deportation was appealed. The appeal took two years. He has been on the streets all that time. To protect him from getting deported his legal aid lawyer went to the refugee board. The incompetence on that board gave him refugee status in 50 minutes. That was used in his favour in the deportation appeal. We asked for a fast decision on it, but of course it has not come yet.
He must be a good guy. He was actually chumming, he said, with the countess group. The countess group is a gang. It is not a group. When asked what he does with the countess group at night he said they sit around, talk and have coffee. I would say in someone else's house after they broke down the door and ripped the furniture apart.
This is what you are keeping in this country. You are not going to remove these people. That is the fallacy in Bill C-44. You know it and we know it. All of the stuff in between counts for nothing.