I'm happy to answer your question. I'm going to try to answer the previous question because to a certain extent they're similar questions. What message do we convey, and what happens when we do these things?
The message we convey is that it's okay to violate human rights. We're not protecting, we're doing it ourselves, we're setting a poor example rather than a good example. When we do something right, we get people who imitate us, and we improve the respect for human rights. When we do something wrong, we also get people who imitate us, and we lessen the respect for human rights.
The designated foreign nationals provisions of Bill C-31 address a real problem. Human smuggling is a scourge, and we have to think about ways of dealing with it. The word the minister uses is “disincentivization”. Disincentivization, which is kind of a clumsy word, is not the best way of dealing with it. We have to think about incentives to prevent people from coming in addition to, or even in preference to, disincentives to their coming in. The incentives for their not coming are improved human rights in their country of origin and improved protection in the intermediate countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangkok. The problem with this bill is it works against these incentives. It sets a poor example that erodes the incentives to improve respect for human rights.