Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time in what is left of the debate with the member for Laval West. I have witnessed what I can only call treachery in this place today. I sat through committee hearings where the critic who just spoke put forward a number of thoughtful amendments that were surprising to many of us on the government side. He listened to some of the people who came forward, took up the challenge they put before the committee, and put forward amendments.
Those amendments in essence would have allowed more rights of appeal for permanent residents who are convicted of a crime, sentenced to at least two years of a possible ten year sentence and who have served that time in prison. When they come out of prison the minister under the new act would have the right to begin deportation proceedings.
The critic put forward amendments, as did other critics on the opposite side, that would have given more appeal opportunities to criminals convicted under what we call the 10 and 2 rule. The amendments would have increased the opportunities for appeal.
I came here today to listen to the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition deliver a speech in which Hansard will show and record that he said there should be fewer opportunities for appeal on deportation orders.
I wondered if I was hearing correctly. Was the Leader of the Opposition openly challenging and countering everything his critic has done in the weeks and months that have gone by in bringing the bill to the point of third reading?
I recall the requirement put in place recently that all speeches by the leader of Her Majesty's opposition be vetted by the critic within that caucus. I wondered if the Canadian Alliance immigration critic had vetted the speech by his party's leader. I can only assume he did not.
It is truly stunning to see this kind of treachery within one's own organization. It is unfair, because while I may disagree with the member opposite—