Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member from St. Albert as to whether we would want discretion in the hands of a court or a democratically elected person, the key difference is that with a discretionary judge there is an appellate procedure so wrong decisions can be appealed, whereas if the minister makes a decision without unfettered discretion there is no appeal with that.
I also want to point out and emphasize just how the bill will make our communities less safe. That must be emphasized, less safe.
When Canadians convicted abroad are denied readmission to serve their sentences in Canada, they will come back to this country 100% of the time. They will be deported. The only difference is that they will come across our border. They will have no rehabilitation. There will be no supervision. There will be no parole. We will not even know that they have a criminal record and these people will be released in our communities.
That is what the government has to answer to Canadians for, why it is pushing a bill that has that kind of effect.
I also want to talk about discretion and quickly put a question to my hon. colleague. The bill allows the minister absolute discretion to take into account whatever he or she wants or whatever he or she does not want. That is simply bad policy-making.
I want to quote from what federal Judge O'Keefe just said recently. He said that the courts “cannot condone nor accept completely unstructured discretion. In circumstances where a decision has such a dramatic effect on the citizen in question, the law requires a complete explanation--”.
We know right now that the courts are commenting critically on the way the legislation is right now where there are some criteria. This bill would remove any criteria.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on whether he thinks the bill before us now already contravenes clear comments by our federal court judges, never mind an obvious potential charter challenge.