I'm surprised you thought I would be coming here to congratulate you on the bill. I will note that I don't disagree. Any human rights activist who takes himself seriously is against impunity. I don't believe in impunity. I believe that people should be held responsible for their crimes. Absolutely. That's not the issue. That's not the concern we're raising. We're not saying there should be no inadmissibility provisions. All we're saying is that there should be an opportunity, in exceptional circumstances, for an impartial, independent decision-maker to give one last shot to a permanent resident who, for example, in the case that I gave you, has been in Canada for the vast majority of their life prior to deportation.
There are a couple of issues in what you say. One thing I'd like to make clear is that I completely agree that it's necessary for the Canadian public to support the immigration and refugee program. That's crucial. Of course, the government, the executive, has a great deal of power in how the system is presented to have an impact on how the public actually views the system.
When the Conservative government...and I'm sorry, but it happens a lot. There's a great deal of talk of abusers, queue jumpers, and people who are not bona fide refugees. That kind of language, when it's coming from our political leaders, has a really negative impact on the system. It's far better, in my submission, to ensure that we have a system where those who are actually a danger to Canada are deported—no question. Well, one question: not if it's deportation to torture. Failing that, deportation to torture or deportation to death, absolutely, serious criminals who present a danger to the public should be deported. We can already do that. We already do that under the existing provisions of IRPA—