Thank you, Chair.
My colleague just made the same case I was going to make.
As we know, the definition of “resident of Canada” here is made pursuant to a section that's prescribed: subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Should that act ever change, and should the section that defines “resident of Canada” in that act change, then we would have a conflict here. I think it's always best to reference a definition without referencing a particular paragraph or clause in another bill, because it creates housekeeping nightmares.
Notwithstanding that, we're all fully aware of some of the issues pertaining to the refugee and immigration acts and legislation we have here. In particular, I would turn my comments to the Singh decision, I believe, in 1985, which basically states that any person who sets foot within the territorial boundaries of Canada is afforded the rights of a Canadian citizen and the rights of due process of every Canadian citizen.
In that case, my colleague Mr. Woodworth is absolutely correct. This proposed legislative amendment would be different from that scope, and it would in my estimation not stand a charter challenge. As a result of the precedent set in the Singh decision, this would be putting a bad clause in an even worse bill.