Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand what Mr. Ménard is trying to accomplish here, I think. With respect, I am concerned that first of all we need to understand that this is not necessarily putting someone in jail. This is determining whether or not a person is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security and violating human rights or whatever.
The next step would be that if they are a threat to the public security of Canada, they would be detained, but the person is always able to leave. We know, as a practical matter, in some cases that can be difficult. I'm not a lawyer, but this message might be confusing. We know that in this process--and we're working to try to improve the process--the burden of proof is not the same as it would be in a criminal court of law, by virtue of the very process. It's not that type of evidence, and so if a judge had to review the matters before him or her and use that same criterion, this could grind to a halt very quickly, it seems to me. It would be a confusing signal, and I don't think it would be the appropriate signal.
I don't personally think it is something we should support.