Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with someone who is a role model to us all, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who will be speaking right after me.
I will get straight to the point, as I think I did with the questions that I asked. I would like to start by saying that the motion moved by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot does not sit well with the Bloc Québécois. The reason is quite simple. We believe there is no contradiction between protecting public safety and respecting fundamental rights. This motion fails to do either.
As we see it, the motion proposes more of an ideological response rooted in fear and generalizations than an effective solution. It would weaken the rule of law rather than strengthening it, without even addressing the true causes of extortion. Extortion is a serious crime. We agree on that. Victims deserve protection, justice and support. Because this is such a serious issue, it deserves more than political slogans and solutions that ultimately weaken the rule of law.
One example of oversimplification and political slogans is the motion's reference to “loopholes for false refugee claimants”. The right to asylum is not a loophole. It is a fundamental right that has been recognized by international and Canadian law for decades. Canada is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva convention. This means that we have an obligation, as a signatory, to review asylum claims on a case-by-case basis and to not automatically turn people away, unless we have safe third country agreements, for example.
On that point, I want to be clear that mechanisms already exist to deny asylum to anyone who poses a risk to public safety. Anyone convicted of serious crimes can be deemed inadmissible and deported. The system is not perfect. I agree with my Conservative colleagues on that point, but the system is neither blind nor unreasoning.
What the Conservative motion proposes, on the other hand, is to deny individuals access to refugee protection, which not only goes against the presumption of innocence but also against the charter and our international obligations. It violates those three things in one fell swoop. It is also safe to assume, as I mentioned earlier, that the proposals contained in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this motion would expose Canada to major court challenges.
In our view, this motion gives the illusion of wanting to take action, but in reality, it distracts from the real solutions for combatting extortion. These solutions include funding for police forces, combatting money laundering, international co-operation, protecting victims and witnesses, and robust criminal prosecutions. Blaming refugees and refugee claimants does not dismantle any criminal networks. It does not protect any victims. It does not make any communities safer.
The Bloc Québécois is also against the idea of restricting judges' discretion, as seems to be the intention of the leader of the Conservative Party. Indeed, for judges to be able to impose a sentence that is individualized and proportional to the seriousness of the offence, they must be able to weigh all the evidence. Ironically, this means that the approach put forward today by the Conservatives would not make Canada safer; it would make it more legally vulnerable.
As I mentioned in my first question earlier, the main issue with this motion is its major blind spot, which is deeply concerning. It relates to political prisoners, people who defend human rights, freedom of expression and democracy, who are falsely accused by authoritarian regimes of committing criminal acts. The Conservative motion makes no mention of these nuances that are nonetheless crucial. The fate of political prisoners is a reality that this motion cruelly ignores.
Around the world, there are women and men who are imprisoned, not for violent crimes, but for exposing corruption, defending human rights, advocating for democracy or simply expressing an opinion. These defenders of human rights and democracy are sometimes accused of fabricated crimes and prosecuted in weaponized judicial systems or convicted following unjust and inhumane trials.
I feel deeply today for the family of political prisoner Jimmy Lai, whose 20‑year prison sentence was announced just a few days ago. In the eyes of the Hong Kong authorities, Mr. Lai is a criminal. In reality, he is a family man and a defender of human rights, freedom of the press and democracy. Mr. Lai is an activist, a pacifist, and yet he is behind bars. His crime is having defended democracy.
What does this motion propose? It proposes indiscriminately barring people with active judicial proceedings related to serious crimes from making refugee claims without any analysis of their case or any context.
If the Canadian Parliament had adopted such an approach in the past, how many political prisoners would have never found refuge here? Soviet dissidents, opponents of the Iranian regime, Chinese journalists, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, and human rights defenders in Latin America could have all been rejected on the basis of accusations made by authoritarian regimes. If adopted, the Conservative motion would prevent someone like Raif Badawi from joining his family in Canada.
To date, Canada has presented itself to the international community as a defender of human rights. It has certainly not done everything right in recent years, but blindly including individuals who have been accused of or prosecuted for so-called serious crimes in a general ban on asylum would betray the very spirit of international protection. As parliamentarians, we cannot delegate our conscience to authoritarian regimes. Canada cannot simply say that we will ban someone because they have been accused by a foreign state. Doing so would amount to delegating our international refugee protection system to regimes that criminalize dissent. Perhaps the Conservatives should clarify their motion and explain their intention. I am sure that they are acting in good faith, but this is not the right way to proceed.
Again, the motion, as written, does not resonate with us at all at the Bloc Québécois. I said it from the outset. To us, this approach lacks nuance and distracts from real solutions at the expense of political goals. It is ineffective and counterproductive, and will not improve public safety in any meaningful way. Worse still, it could potentially weaken the asylum system, expose the system to costly legal challenges and distract from real solutions to combat extortion and organized crime.
In fact, this motion does not appear to strengthen public safety or the rule of law. It is based on fear, generalizations and political oversimplification rather than effective and responsible solutions. It weakens our values, our legal obligations and our international credibility.
Extortion can and must be fought head-on, but we can do so without sacrificing justice, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental principles that define democracies.
For all these reasons and many others, and for the sake of moral credibility, which, in my opinion, should always guide our actions in the House, I oppose this motion, as do my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.
