Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Stephen Green]

It's a danger because the minister would be allowed to close the door any time he or she chooses. Any government could do that when they come in. There's no predictability. There's no rule of law. Families applying to come could be told they are not allowed, that they're not the flavour of the time. That's why it's so important that this framework legislation of the act and the regulations be debated. Canadians can partake and let you decide the regulations. Canadians can hear and understand and have input. Maybe all of Canada will say we should shut the doors, but at least they would have an opportunity to participate. With a minister's instructions, it's not you or I. It's one person who makes the decision.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Tell me, these so-called minister's instructions, what do they mean to you from a legal point of view?

[Stephen Green]

It's an interesting question. Do they have the power of a regulation? Perhaps not. It's interesting because section 93 of this act goes on to say that instructions are not subject to the Statutory Instruments Act, which deals with regulations.

I think it's a question the courts are going to have to answer: what is the power of these instructions? From a practical standpoint, they will have the same effect as regulations. But they haven't gone through the process that you and I would expect with respect to regulatory changes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Let me ask you another question.

Why would you feel that a minister, or a government, would want to have all these powers handed to them?

[Stephen Green]

I really can't comment on that, but I can say that we have a system set up to deal with and to pass regulations. Perhaps this should be done in a regulatory way—and the government responds fairly quickly to regulations.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

You have a legal mind, obviously, being a lawyer. If you were the minister—and I know you may not want to answer hypothetical questions, but you never know—why would you want to go after those powers? What's so special about having all those powers?

[Stephen Green]

You know, I don't know why. I don't know why.

I would just say that we have a regulatory system that was debated, and it is there to have checks and balances, and I think it's the proper route to go.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

But what would be the motivation?

[Stephen Green]

Well, we've heard statements saying that they want to do things more quickly, and this is a quicker way to do them. But perhaps by doing things more quickly, we're throwing out the bathwater first.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

How would you describe the powers of this minister, if you had to describe them in a few words? What do they feel like from a legal perspective?

[Stephen Green]

From a legal perspective, they're the same today as when the act was passed.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

But if these changes were implemented, what type of minister would you have now?

[Stephen Green]

We would have a minister—we would hope—who would exercise this power very carefully, but we would have no ability to debate it or have input. And that's a little scary.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Why are you concerned about the minister having so much power?

[Stephen Green]

Because I think the rule of law requires that you and I, and everyone, have a right to participate in the changing policy of something that's so important to Canada. With instructions, we don't have that ability.

It's interesting that if one goes to the comments made with respect to establishing these instructions, they said the instructions would be in line with the government of the day. It doesn't say, to meet the objectives of this immigration act, but “the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada” at the time. So we're making a distinction between the government of the time and the objectives that are in this act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bevilacqua.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Your comments are very interesting, particularly since you are here representing the Canadian Bar Association. I see you as representing the way laws are meant to be applied. You are concerned about Part VI of Bill C-50. Before tabling this bill, which introduces major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, did the Minister or departmental officials consult you?

[Stephen Green]

Can I ask Kerri to answer that?

[Kerri Froc]

I don't believe there was any consultation with respect to Bill C-50 prior to it being brought to the House.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You are members of the Canadian Bar Association, which represents legal professionals all across the country. Are you ever consulted by the government with respect to amendments to bills or acts of Parliament?

[Stephen Green]

Yes, we have been consulted greatly in many areas with respect to changes in the legislation. There's a provision coming down now where they're looking at all skilled workers having to take an English language test, whether or not they've lived in the United States all of their life. They did come and consult with us; there was great consultation with respect to that. There's another Canada experience class, on which they did consult with us greatly.

So yes. But on this bill, as far as I understand, we were not consulted.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Crépeau, who teaches international law, told us earlier that this bill is not consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you agree with him? If so, will your association take steps to challenge the application of this clause, if it does come into force?

[Stephen Green]

I'm certainly not an expert on charter issues, so I can't comment on that.

On challenging certain provisions in this, I believe we would challenge them when a certain applicant abroad permitted us to. We're dealing with a very vulnerable group, so it's difficult to test many of these provisions with respect to someone who might be hundreds of thousands of miles away. But I assume many of our members would try to challenge them.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I have the feeling you are well acquainted with immigration matters. As you know, there is a backlog of applications to be processed. On the other hand, you have rejected the method proposed to resolve that problem. Do you have an idea of what could be done to resolve it?

Commissioners are the ones who review immigration applications. However, some 50 commissioner positions remain vacant. Could a fairly simple solution, in terms of speeding up the processing of these applications, be to fill those vacant positions?

[Stephen Green]

Absolutely. By having more resources available to process these applications, the government would be able to more quickly access applicants whose skills were needed here, because it would all be done through a numbered system.

For example, if Canada needed more nurses, we could pull them out of the system and process them with the jobs available. They do that now, and it's working quite well in trying to deal with the backlog. If someone has a job waiting for them in Canada, that case is pulled out almost immediately and processed very quickly. The government is doing a fantastic job of that.

We hear so much about this backlog, and we're certainly not denying it's a very serious issue, but how many people are still interested after seven years of waiting? That's the big question. Even if it's half a million, it's still too many.