Evidence of meeting #41 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-50.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
In other words, you are proposing that we go back to what is currently in place?
10:55 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
We should keep what is currently in place—in other words, that a decision has to be made, either positive or negative. If that is not possible, a brief paragraph could be added to say that if there has been no decision—positive or negative—after three years, the decision is assumed to be negative. That would mean that, three years after applying, an individual would be entitled to this recourse. In all cases, a form of recourse must be preserved, since it represents an important legal guarantee.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
To your knowledge, is there a precedent here? Are there other examples elsewhere in the world of this kind of discretionary power being given to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the selection of applications to be reviewed? Does that exist in other countries?
10:55 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
That's a good question. I know that it exists in systems that are not comparable to ours. For example, under the French system—which is not an immigration and settlement system such as ours, decisions are made without there being any form of appeal—but again, it is not a comparable system. We would have to look at what the Australian or British legislation provides for in that regard, but I have not done that analysis.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Does that mean that, under international law, this would be a valid process?
10:55 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
International law is an imperfect system which does not provide a solution. There is no solution to be found in international law, for a number of reasons. One is that there are no detailed regulations with respect to immigration; they simply do not exist. There are regulations regarding the protection of rights, particularly in administrative matters. There again, there are some elements, but you won't find a solution under international law. You will be able to look at certain items in comparative law, but that doesn't mean that the mechanism would be valid under the Charter. Just because someone else does it doesn't mean we should also do it.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'm going to go.... Ms. Grewal gave up her time to Mr. Komarnicki, but I am going to get you on, Mr. Bevilacqua, for a few minutes as well.
Mr. Komarnicki, you have about three to four minutes, please. Then I'm going to give Mr. Bevilacqua a couple of minutes.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I have a couple of points. When we left off, you were going to check the specific section to see if refugees or protected persons were exempt from Bill C-50. Did you come to a conclusion on that?
10:55 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
No. I'd have to have the whole act in front of me to check precisely. I don't have it. I can't tell you now.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
All right. So if they were exempted, and assuming they were, of course, any remarks related to the refugees would not apply in this context. Do you agree?
10:55 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
With respect to the humanitarian and compassionate grounds applications outside of Canada--not within Canada, because I understand within Canada one or more applications can be made under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and that still would apply, given Bill C-50.... I know there has been some mention that if a person failed outside of Canada under a skilled worker class--let's say pursuant to an instruction under Bill C-50.... If Bill C-50 wasn't there, would you agree they could apply under humanitarian and compassionate grounds pre-Bill C-50?
11 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
11 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
What Bill C-50 does, for an individual in that category, is indicate that he may apply, that the minister may consider the application but wouldn't have to.
11 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
Exactly, yes. That's what I understand.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So would you agree with me that this particular portion would prevent someone who fails under the skilled worker class in Bill C-50 from making an application under humanitarian and compassionate grounds?
11 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
That's what I understand the mechanism does, yes.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Would you also agree that Bill C-50, unlike the present system, wouldn't require every application to be processed from start to finish?
11 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
The applications you mentioned in your previous sentence would not have to be processed.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
And would you agree with me that under the present system, which has resulted in a backlog of more than 900,000 people, every application has to be processed notwithstanding the goal set by Parliament to limit it to, let's say, 265,000 or less?
11 a.m.
Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)
Yes. I agree fully with that. And to this I can say that the fact that there's a backlog is an administrative inconvenience, but we are at the administrative inconvenience level, not at the justice level. It would be like saying that we're going to prevent people from making appeals in criminal matters because we're going to process these issues much faster.
Here we have a system where people apply, spending lots of money and energy trying to get into Canada and making applications, and they're not even given an answer. And when they are.... There may be humanitarian considerations, but it's important that they be listened to.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Conservative