Françoise Boivin

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we do indeed share these kinds of concerns. However, I would like to suggest that my colleague wait until I give my speech on Bill S-9 this afternoon. I do not want to give her a scoop because it is against my principles.

Right now, we are talking about Bill S-7, and Bill S-9 will be debated this afternoon. We do in fact have concerns about it, and we will see how all that plays out in Bill S-9.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7, like a number of other government bills, suffers from a major problem: there is no balance between the idea of security and fundamental rights.

Given the government’s unending enthusiasm for making it appear that there is a crying need to amend sections of the Criminal Code, and for striking fear into people’s hearts, it is fortunate that the NDP is here to stand guard and make sure we protect certain fundamental freedoms that we have here. We are not saying that we support terrorism; we do not support it in any way. I am going to talk about the official position of the NDP on Bill S-7.

By the way, I am extremely surprised to see a bill that is as far-reaching as Bill S-7 be introduced in the Senate. Ordinarily, this kind of bill comes in by the back door, from the back benches in the House, but this time it is coming from the Senate. It was examined there and then introduced here. Let us not delude ourselves: this bill is not really coming from the Senate; it is coming from the Minister of Justice, who wants to amend some provisions of the Criminal Code.

Before getting to the heart of the subject, I would like to thank some of my colleagues who have done exceptional work on this issue, including my colleague from St. John's East, who was justice critic before me, and the critic who preceded him. I would also like to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, who has done an excellent analysis of the subject and has provided extremely valuable support for me on this issue.

There is clearly a major problem in this bill when it comes to balancing security and fundamental rights. Let us not delude ourselves. We have put questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. How is it that provisions that expired four years ago have suddenly become extremely important and have to be implemented, when, to our knowledge and the knowledge of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee that examined Bill S-7, there have been no cases to date?

In answer to the question that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, there will be endless quoting of witnesses who appeared before the Senate and support the bill. Those witnesses did not say it is needed; they said “you cannot be too careful”. When we are dealing with concepts as important as international law, terrorism or civil liberties, that is not really the way to do things.

It is not that simple. To deal with terrorism and terrorist threats in Canada, you do not simply include some slightly tougher provisions in the Criminal Code or other legislation. Canada is already a signatory to a number of international conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The present government, however, seems to be strangely unfamiliar with the concept of child soldiers. For once, the government would do well to listen to Senator Dallaire, who saw the implications this can have up close. We have all witnessed the tragedy of Omar Khadr. The attitude taken toward a Canadian citizen, toward someone we call a child soldier, is not really a model of good government. In short, these are thorny problems we are dealing with here.

The first thing we have to seriously wonder about is why the government is going through the Senate to make fundamental changes like the ones proposed in this bill. That is one of the problems.

I think it is important that members understand what is going on with Bill S-7. I am therefore going to give a bit of background.

It is interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary say that this expired seven years ago but that the fact it expired does not mean it was not necessary. This is not the first time the government has tried to enact a bill of this nature.

First, there was Bill S-7, which was introduced in the Senate on February 15. Basically, that bill amends subsection 7(2) of the Criminal Code, which describes acts that relate to an aircraft, an airport or an air navigation facility, are committed when the person who commits them is in Canada, and by operation of subsection 7(2) and paragraph 83.01(1)(a) constitute a terrorist activity. We see how technical this can get. It would add new terrorism offences to Part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which covers section 83.01 and the sections that follow.

I encourage the members of the House to read section 83.01 of the Criminal Code and the sections that follow it, which already cover many aspects of terrorism. That part is devoted entirely to terrorism.

This bill will also, in certain circumstances, enhance the existing sentences provided for by the Criminal Code that may be imposed on any person who knowingly harbours or conceals a person who has committed a terrorism offence. It will restore to the Criminal Code the provisions relating to investigative hearings, recognizance with conditions and preventive arrest in the case of a terrorist activity. A concept like this presents a problem, because our legal system presumes innocence until proof to the contrary is provided.

The desire to institute systems that compel a person to incriminate himself is a problem for me. We cannot hand a blank cheque to a government that, to date, has not shown that it takes these matters seriously or that it values human rights. It has given the impression of being tough on crime, but has not acted logically, and we have seen no need, based on the facts, to alter sections that are as important as these.

This bill also proposes to amend sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, to reflect some but not all of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in its March 2007 report, in compliance with the judgment of the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada.

It would also amend the definition of special operational information in the Security of Information Act to provide that the identity of a confidential source that is being used by the government would be considered, under that act, to be special operational information. What we have to understand is that this is an attempt to reduce to a minimum the transparency and exchange of information that ensure that everything is done in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental rights of Canadians.

It would also, in certain circumstances, increase the penalty provided for the offence of knowingly harbouring or concealing a person who has committed an offence under section 29 of the Security of Information Act.

As I said, this is not the first time the government has attempted to do this. This is the most recent in a series of anti-terrorism acts that started with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act introduced in 2001. That shows that this bill can be introduced in the House of Commons. Was the government too worried that common sense would prevail here in the House, and so it preferred to have the Senate clear the way for it? I have absolutely no idea, but it is disturbing to see bills as far-reaching as this one start out in the other place.

Some of the provisions of this bill were subject to a sunset clause and so they expired in February 2007. We have to understand that the Anti-terrorism Act was passed after the horrible events of September 2001. We should not be surprised that in the aftermath of an event that devastated our entire planet, when people were asking what kind of world they were living in, a decision was made to take certain measures.

I am not being partisan at all when I say that it is always extremely dangerous to make such fundamental decisions in law when everyone is hitting the panic button and wondering how to resolve a situation that initially seems entirely incomprehensible. That goes without saying. That may be how humans and politicians react, but it is definitely not a good way for a lawmaker to react.

In 2007, this act included certain sections that had to be reviewed because they were so-called "sunset clauses", which means that a period of time is allowed for implementation and that a re-evaluation is necessary. At least I can commend the politicians of the time who had the brilliant idea to submit that, or to resubmit it, to both houses, because it had to be submitted to both houses. This bill must be passed by both houses. Once again, incidentally, I am convinced that my colleagues opposite will tell me that it is of little importance whether it starts in the Senate or in the House of Commons; it has to be submitted to one place or the other. This time, it started in the Senate. However, this is a substantive bill, these are substantive decisions, and the views of the elected representatives of the people are more important in this matter than those of appointees and friends of the regime.

This bill has been under review since 2007. All kinds of attempts have been made to reactivate the provisions in question. To extend or reactivate those provisions that expired in 2007, both houses of Parliament must pass a resolution. Such a resolution was defeated by a vote of 159 to 124 in the House of Commons in February 2007 because the controversial provisions had never been used.

In my view, this is the second most important question in this matter. Why have provisions that have not been used suddenly become a necessity, without us even receiving the slightest answer from the government about why we need them in specific cases? Perhaps there is a lack of trust when it comes to sharing information, but they share it with no one in any case. Then they talk amongst themselves and count on us to give them carte blanche so they can do virtually anything. I think that is a major problem. That is why it was defeated by a vote of 159 to 124 in the House of Commons in 2007.

In addition, both Houses were supposed to conduct a full parliamentary review, either jointly or independently. The House of Comments and Senate reports were submitted in 2006 and 2007 respectively. The original aim of the Anti-terrorism Act was to update Canadian laws to meet international standards, particularly UN requirements, and to provide a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, as I said earlier. All the provisions of the Anti-terrorist Act, except for that concerning investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions, remain in effect today.

Consequently, we must not believe our colleagues opposite when they tell us that it is as though we have nothing to protect Canadians against terrorism. I repeat, there is an entire section in the Criminal Code, not to mention other acts of Parliament, that applies to terrorism. The sunset clause was added to the original bill because serious concerns had been raised during the legislative process in 2011. Those provisions were the most controversial. A great deal of wisdom was expressed in this House regarding concerns raised about the need to adopt such amendments to the Criminal Code.

I carefully read the evidence of the various witnesses who appeared before the Senate. I repeat that no witness said, based on any facts, that it was necessary to adopt the provisions in question. Some witnesses clearly told the Senate committee that there were major problems with regard to the protection of children's rights.

What will we do about minors living in these kinds of situations? Who will have precedence? Will it be the youth courts, which usually have exclusive jurisdiction over children under the age of 18? Will those provisions take precedence? There is a great deal of concern here. What rights are there? What do we do about the right not to incriminate oneself? What need is there for us to impose this kind of direction on a system in which we have no evidence of this kind of need? That is my major concern in this matter.

I already know what comments we will hear in and outside the House: that the official opposition is in favour of terrorists, against Canadians and against protection and public safety. That is false.

The Criminal Code, which I wholly support, already contains a section that protects Canadians. The message I am sending to Canadians listening to us is this: you must not believe that there is no protection. We have a system that protects Canadians. We can definitely give our specialized anti-terror police forces authority to gather evidence in order to establish a case. However, that does not mean we must set aside concepts as fundamental as the presumption of innocence, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to be told quickly what we are accused of and the right to defend ourselves against those charges. We are not living in a military or police state in Canada. We have a system in which the rule of law prevails and in which the presumption of innocence is central to our values. That is important.

Coming back to my basic message, there is no balance in this bill between security and the fundamental rights of Canadians. As such, we cannot support this bill since it is unnecessary and full of holes, it introduces concepts foreign to our Canadian values, and it risks causing many more problems than it solves.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Delta—Richmond East.

I understand that the government is trying to stress the importance of reinstating two controversial security measures that were abolished four years ago. An independent group calculated that the fight against terrorism has already cost Canada $92 billion since 2001.

Why are these measures still necessary if we have not had any problems in the four years they have been gone? What has changed in that time?

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding at this point in time unless somebody wants to correct me.

My understanding of the bill is that a surcharge will be imposed, no matter what the punishment, for every count to which someone pleads guilty. It is important to understand this. That is what needs to be clear in people's minds: the surcharge is not the punishment as such. The bill says what it says, which is that it is a surcharge added to the punishment handed down by the judge. It means that if someone pleads guilty on six counts, there will be six surcharges. I have no problem with that. Allow me to repeat: the question has nothing to do with the concept of the surcharge.

Everyone is aware of the fact that the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has said that victims need to see this fund. One might well ask whether this is the right way to help victims or whether there ought perhaps to be other dedicated funds. Few people here would be against having offenders contribute to compensation for their victims. In any event, that is what I think.

That being said, in attempting to solve one problem, we should not create a new one.

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his welcome compliments. It is always nice to receive them. In politics, you generally do not receive many. So it is a little boost, particularly on a Friday, right before Thanksgiving weekend and a return to my constituency.

He has indeed hit upon one of the major problems with Bill C-37. It pertains to those who will be unable to pay. No one is bothered if a Conrad Black has to pay a higher surcharge at the judge’s discretion when the judge knows that he has the ability to pay. Not many people will be very upset to see that people like Vincent Lacroix or Conrad Black have to pay a slightly higher surcharge.

Statistics show that in our Canadian prisons and detention centres, the first nations are overrepresented, as are aboriginal people and sometimes women. That being the case, they are often extremely disadvantaged. What impact will legislation like this have on this prison population?

Extreme caution and compassion are necessary, because we are aware of the severity of the problem that has arisen in some locations, where people are often neglected by the federal government, because this is a federal jurisdiction. Extreme caution is necessary to ensure that no additional problems are created by passing Bill C-37.

[Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you enter the chamber and be our Speaker for the day, it seems. We know you will perform your duties professionally, as usual.

I rise in the House to reiterate my position on Bill C-37 as the justice critic for the official opposition. We repeat: we will be voting for this bill, which will be sent to committee.

We have spent long hours here debating Bill C-37, the Increasing Offender's Accountability for Victims Act, whose purpose is to amend the Criminal Code by increasing victim surcharges. We have spent long hours doing our utmost to show that there will be work to be done in committee. We cannot give the Conservative government a blank cheque, for the simple reason that this bill raises a lot of questions.

It was extremely interesting to hear my New Democratic Party colleagues try so hard to make our colleagues opposite understand the weaknesses in this bill. At the very least, we are going to have to ask for some serious answers.

I am going to summarize the problematic aspects of Bill C-37. One of the bill’s major weaknesses is that, once again, it takes away the judge’s discretion, by repealing subsection 737(5) of the Criminal Code. It takes away the judge’s power not to impose a surcharge when the offender can show that he is unable to pay or when the judge has particular reasons for not imposing the surcharge.

It must be understood that the surcharge is in addition to the sentence already imposed. That may be a term of imprisonment or a fine; it may be many things. That is what subsection 737(5) provides.

The bill has not yet been sent to committee, and already some people are arguing that this change could lead to unequal treatment for certain types of offenders. Consider aboriginal women, the first nations, and various categories of people who may not have the ability to pay this kind of fine.

We often hear the other side say, “You did the crime, well, you pay the fine”. We can all agree with that. It is indeed hard to have any sympathy sometimes. But here, it is not a question of sympathy, it is a question of justice and rehabilitation for a person who is released from prison.

The surcharge is in addition to each of the counts of which the person was convicted. If a person was charged with 10 counts of breaking and entering, for example, and decided to plead guilty to each of those counts, a surcharge would be levied for each count. That provides a small idea of the astronomical sum that would get added, if the bill were to be enacted.

If a person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a $200 surcharge would be imposed automatically for each count. That can add up to quite a lot of money. These people really have no income. The Minister of Public Safety seems to think that $4 or $5 an hour is a high wage, but that is not really the case.

Bill C-350 then lays down a new order for payment of the amounts owing. In short, the Criminal Code is well designed, in that it allows the judge to consider all cases on their own merits and make the best decision possible.

As a brief aside, yesterday evening, I attended the committee meeting to vet the Supreme Court of Canada nominee, Richard Wagner, of the Quebec Court of Appeal. In response to a question asked by a Conservative member, he explained the importance of the discretionary aspect of a judge's powers in relation to the independence of the three branches: legislative, judicial and executive. This discretionary power assures us that we live in a true democracy and not an anarchistic system that impinges on the powers of each of those branches.

The legislative authority must have confidence in its judicial branch, because without that, we have a serious problem.

Often, when it comes to justice bills, when you get right down to it, this government really seems to have a problem with allowing judges to exercise their discretion. This is a serious accusation for this government to level, and it is dangerous for our society, for Canadian society. I am not saying that all decisions are perfect, since to err is human, but overall, our system works well.

Here is my message to my colleagues: I hope we will work on this bill at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the same way we worked together for the screening of the new Supreme Court justice—that is, in an entirely non-partisan fashion. We worked with a view to allowing the minister and the Prime Minister to appoint one of the three individuals recommended from among the best we have to offer Canadians to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope we can work as collaboratively once again.

Judicial discretion is referred to in subsection 737(5) of the Criminal Code, and there is a very strong argument in favour of it. During the first hours of debate on this issue, I was here, in the House, to encourage colleagues speaking to the bill, and I listened to the speeches. The Conservatives had little to say. That seems to be their approach: they introduce bills without anyone knowing what they are thinking, because they do not tell us. We see the minister or the parliamentary secretary briefly, and then they vanish. By asking a few questions, we sometimes manage to get to the bottom of what they are thinking.

I listened to the member from Yukon, who will surely raise his head because I am talking about him. I am standing right across from him, talking about him. He sees me and is listening to me. He said the following a number of times:

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of discussion around fines and whether the offenders would have to make application or why the offender would be predetermined to have a victim fine surcharge and that it should be up to the judge's discretion. Judges are ultimately still deciding the fines and the fine amount. Fines are an alternative to jail [not necessarily], which is positive and allows offenders to remain in the community to contribute to their families and social and economic development.

That is the first misinterpretation of what Bill C-37 seeks to do. Fines are not being used as an alternative to jail. This bill spells out how much the victim surcharge will be for a person who is sentenced to jail. Everyone will be fined. There will be no exceptions. A person sentenced to jail used to be fined $100. Now they will be fined $200. If a fine is imposed instead of a prison sentence, then the amount will be based on a percentage. The percentage used to be 15%; now it will be 30%. That is what this bill will do. It is important that government members understand the bills that the government is introducing.

However, the point of accountability is that when a victim surcharge is assessed automatically, the offender still has the option of presenting undue hardships or mitigating circumstances where a judge could consider reducing the fine option. That is what subsection 737(5) is about. The Conservatives are using Bill C-37 to remove this subsection. They want to repeal it.

I agree with the hon. member for Yukon. I do not take issue with the fact that the onus is on the offender to prove that he is unable to pay or that there are fundamental reasons why he should not pay the surcharge.

I agree with the way the hon. member for Yukon sees things, but I feel like telling him to read Bill C-37, because it has the totally opposite effect of what he keeps saying about it in the House.

In closing, that is the message I want to send to my colleagues from all the parties. Bill C-37 will probably pass because the NDP will support it and I imagine that the Conservatives will do the same, at least, and so will the Liberals. At the very least we have to refer this bill to committee to be studied thoroughly. We have to find out what impact it will have, why the government wants to change this, why it wants to eliminate judicial discretion, whether there have been any abuses or bad decisions. That is what we need to know. It is not right to take the ideological approach that judges do not know what they are doing and cannot make a proper decision.

[Community Support, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this month, the people of Gatineau are celebrating the anniversaries of three organizations that make their mark every day.

First, the St. René seniors club, under the dynamic leadership of Liliane Charette of my Real, is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Every week, the club organizes games and activities to the delight of the seniors. I regularly have the privilege and great pleasure of seeing the great work this club does.

Second, the Outaouais family support service is celebrating its 30th anniversary. Under the leadership of Diane Tremblay, my favourite slam poet who I deeply admire, this exemplary organization works tirelessly with people in need and changes lives daily by meeting the vital needs of the least fortunate.

Finally, the Gatineau seniors centre is celebrating its 35th anniversary. Its dedicated and determined team breaks the isolation of seniors by encouraging their independence and creativity through arts, well-being, language and leisure programs.

I tip my hat to them all for their devotion and their passion. These groups of devoted citizens are the heart and soul of community support in Gatineau. I am proud to represent them in the House and to work in partnership with them. Thank you all.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I was saying to the other member before the question.

There are so many cases. I worry that with all the work that was done on Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, new minimum sentences were created for some offences which, even the members opposite will admit, are not as serious as robbery with violence, armed robbery or major fraud.

Situations may arise like the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North just described. They are not rare. Many people have not applied for citizenship but, after making some mistakes and serving their sentences, become model citizens. They just have not made it official.

So all kinds of situations can happen. Once again, I want to ask the government a question. How many cases is this based on? Exactly who are the targets?

We must be able to make decisions based on the evidence. This government, which was elected on a promise of transparency, continues to show a lack of transparency. How ironic.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is “I rest my case.” I think the hon. member did not hear the main point of my speech. In any case, I do appreciate that a Conservative member has finally risen in the House to at least try to demonstrate some interest in Bill C-43.

That said, I would say no, that is not what I mean by minor. We know that the Conservatives are always trying to make people believe that the official opposition wants to protect pedophiles, bank robbers, and the like.

Here we are talking about making changes concerning people who have been found guilty of an offence subject to a two-year sentence but who had certain rights, and reducing that to six months. I would like to reply to the hon. member that six-month sentences are given for shoplifting. Some minors make mistakes. Some people, when they are young, make certain mistakes and, with a good rehabilitation system, turn into very good citizens.

So, would the other side please stop using the most extreme cases and trying to shove them down our throats, and stop trying to pretend we are saying things we are not.

No one in this house wants to see Canada open its arms to hardened and dangerous criminals and allow them to stay here. That is not the issue. The issue is to strike a balance in this bill, as we would like to see in all things.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by handing out compliments to my colleagues from Newton—North Delta and Saint-Lambert, who are doing absolutely remarkable work on issues that are not always easy. I will continue in the same vein as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway and talk about certain aspects of this bill. Speaking of compliments, we said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading—let the members opposite take note of this—because we want to study it further in committee.

I must say that, based on everything I have been hearing for the past few days, studying this in committee will be a daunting task. After a quick glance at this bill, it is easy to see that it is flawed. Imagine all the work an in-depth study will entail.

As an aside, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has many newcomers in his riding. My riding of Gatineau does not. It is a typical Quebec riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families. One might think that Gatineau does not have any problems regarding immigration or refugees, but my riding assistant might beg to differ. I tip my hat to her. Being so busy, I do not see much of her. Aline Séguin does absolutely incredible work on files that are not easy. When we get the chance to sit down together and talk, you would be surprised at the things that I learn. In my riding made up of 93% or 94% francophones, whites and young families, the majority of our files have to do with immigration, refugees, visas, etc. I hear terms that I am not necessarily familiar with and it is positively dizzying.

Over the years—and I already have quite a few under my belt—whether I was working in radio or television, I learned how easy it is to get people up in arms, to take extremely serious and human subjects and to completely and totally dehumanize them. It is easy to give certain impressions and to play on people's worries and fears.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North seems to be offended by the bill's short title. I am too. I always say that, when it comes to the members opposite, reality is in the details. The full title of the bill is An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I would like to emphasize the “refugee protection” part of the title because, when we look at the bill, the short title says something different. When I was studying law, I was taught that the short title was a way to shorten titles that were sometimes too long. In law, that is what the short title is. Yet, here, the short title often shows us the intention behind what the members opposite are constantly trying to achieve with their bills. In this case, it is informative because the short title really jumps off the page.

We are talking about An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One could wonder how a title like that could be shortened since it is already quite clear and concise. But, the Conservatives shortened the title to the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. When I saw that, I said to myself, “Wow! There are going to be plenty of problems with this.” What struck me, when I looked into the subject a little, was that it is difficult to determine how many cases this bill will affect. Why? The reason is that, when we are dealing with the members opposite, we are never able to access any information. It is like going to the dentist and trying to have a tooth extracted every time. And yet, this seems to be an extremely important and valid issue.

I always tell myself that, when we are in this impressive and imposing chamber, we have a role to play. I start thinking about how I am going to go back to the law faculty at the University of Ottawa just to tell them to forget this other principle of law that is taught, that it is not true and that the legislator speaks for the sake of speaking. In fact, I find that, often in this magnificent chamber, people speak for the sake of speaking. Laws are being created that leave me wondering what problem they address.

The government invents problems in order to draft bills that it can show off to people on the 6 o’clock and 11 o’clock news. It is really sad, because this perpetuates prejudices that are so easy to transmit.

When I was a little girl, my parents told me Canada was a beautiful country. They infused me with pride in Canada from my youngest days. Our parents were Franco-Ontarian, but we, the children, were born in Quebec. We took full advantage of our beautiful Canadian federation. My father often told us that the beauty of Canada lay in its three founding peoples. Of course he meant the first nations, Quebec and Canada.

Another element of this beauty is the perception people have of Canada as a land of welcome; a land that takes care of its citizens, of course, but is also concerned with what happens elsewhere. I am not trying to make everyone’s hearts bleed, but everyone knows that. My father always said that Canada welcomed everyone with open arms. I grew up with that concept and that belief. In the last 10 or 15 years, a harder tone has crept into such talk.

Perhaps the media are a little bit to blame. Television news is now on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the ratings wars, news organizations often work very hastily and try to find news items that will shock and provoke. What could be easier than to use another human being badly and keep him down? That is what happens when we talk about immigrants and refugees. At least that is so in my humble opinion, which no one is obliged to share.

When I was young, I had some problems understanding the nuances concerning refugees.

What I understand now is that while an immigrant makes the decision to come here, a refugee has no choice. The refugee is seeking a land that will welcome him, because if he stays where he is, he may be killed. As we begin, can we keep this basic concept in mind?

That said, there always are good people and those who are not so good. Like Jack Layton, I have a tendency to remain an eternal optimist and be positive. I tell myself that most people are fundamentally good. I still believe that, although it is sometimes difficult when I see the morning news. Anyway, in my heart, I still believe it.

The bills introduced by the members opposite always try to twist concepts that otherwise would be positive and humane. These bills are making our society one that trusts almost nothing and no one. They leave the very disagreeable impression that on every street corner lurks a criminal refugee who is the worst person ever born, but luckily, here is the great Captain Canada, also known as the Minister of Immigration. He will ensure that our society can live without fear, because he will be able to send that bad person back where he came from, no matter what will happen to him there.

This bill, like many others, worries me greatly. My only warning is that many powers are being taken away from the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and given to the minister. I like the minister, but I would not give him—or any other minister—carte blanche.

Thus, we must not think that this bill will be taking away all recourse. In fact, it creates tons of recourse. The party across the way, by creating or passing this kind of measure, will ensure that arguments will no longer be made on appeal and that they will no longer concern the facts of the case. With my crystal ball, I predict that there will be many instances of recourse to get a judicial review of the minister’s decisions. It will all serve to open another Pandora’s box—and the results may be nasty.

So, once again, I hope that they will listen to what is said in committee, that the committee is able to do its work thoroughly, and that the members opposite will stop thinking that a bill is good just because they wrote it.