I'm not moved by editorials. It doesn't bother me when an editorialist tries to define the national interest. As a legislator, I want to make sure that we'll ultimately have the best possible act and that it can protect every individual. This is a principle or a value: We have to protect every individual. That's fundamental.
People will have their press scrum afterwards. As a former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and as a Canadian and Quebecker, I want to make sure that we implement the principle that every individual is entitled to a chance and a hearing, and that it isn't because a person comes from a particular country that he or she will be "screwed"—pardon that expression; I don't know how it will be translated.
This is important for me; it's fundamental. Personally, I'm ready to give everything, and that's no problem for me. We can deal with the time and all that; the regulation can completely change. Ultimately, we have to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and sleep well at night. We all talked to the representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees, and we all talked to everyone. I want to be sure that when Ms. X comes to Canada, she'll be treated fairly.
As of now, will we be completely changing the situation, intrinsically? As of now, every case will no longer be individual because we've said that certain individuals were coming from a country. I'm asking you to reassure me; that's all I'm asking.
If a woman who doesn't want to be sexually mutilated is from a country that is suppose to be safe, will she have as much of an opportunity as if she was from another country that does not appear on the list? What about a battered woman? What about a homosexual who wants to come to Canada because it's a tolerant country and a free country and whose only crime—because it's a crime in 72 countries—is to love someone of his own gender? Will that person get the same chance if we interpret the act?