Minister, I think that what you are trying to have passed is something of an omnibus bill.
I am all for changing the process. Besides, that is something we both have already discussed. As for making sure that we do not weigh down the administrative process, while maintaining the right to a hearing, and eventually an appeal, that is something I fully agree with, as I told you at the outset. However, in trying to make such far-reaching changes, you might go from being the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to being the Minister of Labelling. This all appears to be a labelling exercise.
In trying to manage population movements—speaking in practical terms— we are confronted by a number of facts. You know that all ministers of Immigration have imposed visas, which is quite normal and correct. However, ministers of Immigration should never give up their power to take exceptional measures when need be. The concept of “safe countries”, would create two systems: one intended for people from safe countries and another for people from countries that are not considered as such. That would undermine our distinctively Canadian system, which recognizes that each case is specific and unique.
You currently have regulatory powers that allow you to effectively manage cases of abuse. If this were a bill to improve the process, I would support you. I think that would be a good thing. We indeed have to cut down on as much legal quibbling as possible, while ensuring that people can defend themselves appropriately. I have full confidence in the public servants who support you. We need customs personnel who are adequately trained and who could make the decisions concerning refugee claims, based on specific criteria, as if they had the minister's delegated authority, and all the better if refugee claimants can file appeals with the Immigration and Refugee Board, depending on the merits of their cases.
To echo the question of my colleague, Mr. St-Cyr, I do not understand why this bill removes powers from the minister, depending on whether an individual comes from a safe or unsafe country. Things could be done differently if you retained the power to make exceptions in exceptional situations, a power that has been granted to all ministers of Immigration. Our role is to achieve a balance between the established system and the power of the minister to make decisions in exceptional circumstances. If we do not do that, we might weaken our entire immigration system, which has been built up over the past decades.
You say that you are ready to bring forward amendments. Would it not have been better to retain that exceptional power in the case of safe countries, rather than abandoning those responsibilities, as this leads me to believe? I am concerned that you might decide not to file appeals to the Federal Court in exceptional circumstances involving a safe country and not submit those cases to the normal process, despite the general ability to file an appeal with the Federal Court.