Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know that the minister might be a little sensitive about this and that members of the committee might be sensitive about this, but these are the types of expressions we hear within our caucus and from individuals who have come before the committee itself.
The minister has taken it upon himself to have a great deal more power. The simple question is how these cases will be flagged and brought to the minister's attention. There are new powers to the minister to prevent entry. What will be the checks and balances on the minister when he has this discretionary power? What is he actually putting in place? He has the ability to have the power to deny someone access.
He makes reference to a dictator. He doesn't want the dictator's wife to be able to come. What about the mother who has two children, one living in Canada as a Canadian citizen, another living in Chandigarh or the Philippines, whose spouse might be affiliated with organized crime? She is going to be labelled and told that she can't come to Canada because of her family member's behaviour, even if she is in a country where divorce might not necessarily be allowed. These are the ramifications of this legislation for real people. It's not just the rapists and murderers and so forth.
Did the minister take that into consideration before he labelled the bill? Why did he call it “foreign criminals” as opposed to “permanent residents” in the legislation? Wording is important. This minister has consistently chosen strong wording to send a message. The message isn't always positive. In the short term, you might be able to get the types of headlines you want, but it can be very damaging to the community as a whole.
I would ask him to provide comment in what little time is left.